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

reply to post by tauristercus


Excellent work mate! ATS is proud of you.

Do you fancy doing some more digging? I have a theory that I don't have the time or the tools to use.

The blue haze created by the missile or whatever it was - I have a theory on this. What creates a blue haze in the upper atmosphere? Heavy Oxygen. O3. Ozone.

Why would Ozone be emitted from the back of some 'missile' or other flying object? More importantly, why would the object suddenly disappear and create a 'void' in the area it was just in?

Deuterium. Tritium? Follow the bread crumbs.

The Para.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Parallex]

reply to post by tauristercus
Star and flag to you my friend!What a great presentation and theory.

As others said,I had no clue there were other HAARP like facilities around the world.Looks like I have more reading to do.Thanks for your great post ,tauristercus.

Op, both my brother and I looked through the initial thread and all of the resulting picture evidence yesterday.

We both came to the same conclusion that if it was a missile, than the location of the White Sea could not of been the original launch of this phenomena.

The law of similar triangle can be used to find the exact location of the "launch" site.

I was going to write a thread on this, but have been too busy.

It is good to see some here do not fall for the speculation of asshats in media or we would all still be believing in the divine right of monarchs.

Do you have the exact location of the photographer that took the breathtaking photo? The one with the largest spiral? All one would have to do to calculate the height of the phenomena, would be to take the height of a object in the photo and the distance to it to then determine the height and distance to the phenomena. Using said geometric calculations.

If you can give me the photographers location and direction the photographs were taken, I can determine the exact location(give or take a few kilometers) by the photograph alone.

Excellent thread hypothesis and S&F from me.

reply to post by Parallex


It may also be related to hydrogen peroxide or whatever propellant is used in that missile. Could be exhausted particles in an excited state. Something similar to auroras.


Still waiting comments on this:

Originally posted by DGFenrir

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

How about this calculation:
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?

i found a video on eiscat that i`ve not seen on this forum so i felt i should add it to this great thread.it explains the technology of haarp`s propagating electromagnetic wave and it`s effects, from the video makers perspective
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Then let me rephrase it. If the missile was a failed launch due to guidance failure, then we should assume that the missile would not make corrections for the coriolis effect. Your links about the coriolis effect(the wiki link to be exact), shows that in the northern hemisphere it would make an unguided object traveling in one direction(east south west north) to always veer right of it original point of launch. So if it was launched to the east it would veer south(nowhere near Norway), and if launched northerly it would veer east, over russia. For it to go in the direction of norway the failed missile would have have launched either to the south-ish or to the west to end up anywhere north, north west.

This info is based on your own link about the coriolis effect, not something you stated directly. It seemed odd that you would bring it up but then make statements that seemed go against said coriolis effect. Thats why I asked if you read through that link you provided. If it came from the east, according to the coriolis effect that wouldnt be the actual point of origin as it has veered tp the right, over whatever distance it has flown.

I find the size of the disk to be far more interesting though...after 2 stages, just how much fuel is left, how big of an area could the fuel cover while ejecting out the side. Surely a 400 mile wide disk area is well beyond a missiles fuel capacity. The math for determining the size is straight forward, and already graphed out in this thread.


I also wonder...what about Mutual assured destruction (MAD)? If it had been a real nuke, Norway just failed big time. Are our defences just as slow or lagging? How would their army mis-identify such a huge possible threat? Isn't that like what they train for?

[edit on 14-12-2009 by LordBaskettIV]

WOW! I thought the OP did a nice job on the research. I saw someone's post about EISCAT (I think thats how its spelled), another facility like HAARP, which I had never heard of until this thread. Thanks for bringing this to attention What are some other possibilities? To me it look like they were sending a lot of rays into the sky, possibly trying to further damage the ozone for the sake of their global carbon bulls***?? I don't know what to think, but it is definitely not what the MSM is claiming.

Since many people witnessed this spectacular show in the sky, are there any other long shutter speed shots like the pictures we all have seen? Perhaps from another viewpoint with comparable quality?

So can a missile fired from the White Sea be seen in Norway? If so, could the trails look as large as they did in the long shutter speed shots, assuming the angle was perfectly from behind? Have there been sightings reported from the countries within the area between Norway and the White Sea yet?

There is just not enough information atm. Is the title to this thread accurate?








[edit on 14-12-2009 by astronomine]

reply to post by DGFenrir

How about this calculation:
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?

I'm really sorry but I simply don't understand what you're saying with the above

Could you please give a bit more explanation as to why you're manipulating the moons distance and diameter and why pick 2 or 3 as a multiplier ? Whats the significance of these two values as you use them ?

And how does the above calculation equate to the spirals diameter ?
Doesn't that ignore the spirals height (altitude) above ground ?

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
reply to post by ALLis0NE

 

Then let me rephrase it. If the missile was a failed launch due to guidance failure, then we should assume that the missile would not make corrections for the coriolis effect. Your links about the coriolis effect(the wiki link to be exact), shows that in the northern hemisphere it would make an unguided object traveling in one direction(east south west north) to always veer right of it original point of launch. So if it was launched to the east it would veer south(nowhere near Norway), and if launched northerly it would veer east, over russia. For it to go in the direction of norway the failed missile would have have launched either to the south-ish or to the west to end up anywhere north, north west.

Actually the third stage does some trajectory correction. But the warheads it carries do the aming tho.

reply to post by tauristercus



S&F

Thanks for your brilliant effort in explaining this!

This has to be the most interesting information about the Norwegian Spiral Phenomenon I've read so far!

My personal theory is that this Norwegian spiral event could have been a launch from norway to study some sort of Birkeland currents occuring that day?

This would mean that a rocket of some sort was involved together with new technology from EISCAT to investigate the Birkeland currents phenomena.

This guy from Los Alamos National Laboratory seems to agree on the Birkeland currents!

Originally posted by Xenus

Here is an email I got from Anthony L. Peratt ( www.zoominfo.com ) and this is what he had to say about the Norway event.

Re: Regarding plasma/aurora phenomena over Norway

This event was natural and occurs when two Birkeland currents
interact, usually around 300 -500 km above Earth. Birkeland currents
most often occur in pairs because of the 1/r attractive force between
them.

This is not an EISCAT heating phenomena.

Sincerely,

A. L. Peratt
Los Alamos National Laboratory

So here from this guy's post - all we can read is that A.L Peratt says that this not an EISCAT HEATING phenomena.

So apparently no ordinary HAARP style heating technology was going on in that test! - but that doesn't mean that EISCAT is out of the picture yet in my opinion!

And it could have been some other technology used by EISCAT plasma physics to investigate and measure the Birkeland currents which occured in the sky over Tromsø Norway that early morning a couple of days ago?


Birkeland Spiral Aurora Current Phenomena

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5114e026024b.jpg[/atsimg]

The EISCAT Headquarters are also located in Kiruna Sweden which maybe could explain the total blackout of information about this event from the Swedes and the Swedish Military authorities.


Either this or it was a.....Missile Defense Shield!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/53384388f52a.jpg[/atsimg]

WHAT!? did he just say A MISSILE DEFENCE SHIELD?

Now you may ask yourselves : Is this Scandinavian guy totally nuts?

Yeah! I'm a nutty guy who doesn't buy the Official Russian Rocket Explaination directly without more credible information from ALL Nordic countries including Russia, about this incident.

And as a Scandinavian I'm very suspicious about the total blackout of information from the Norwegian, Swedish and the Finnish military about this event.

That's why I'm keeping an open mind for other alternative explainations until ALL the cards and evidences are on the table about a failed Russian missile launch which was only viewable in Tromsø Norway - and NOT viewable in any of the other Scandinavian countries, nor registered by their Military Missile Surveillance Systems as they have officially said to the media when asked about it.

One Filthy Dog is now buried in the Scandinavian Arctics - that's for sure!



[edit on 14-12-2009 by Chevalerous]

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by DGFenrir

 

How about this calculation:
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?

I'm really sorry but I simply don't understand what you're saying with the above

Could you please give a bit more explanation as to why you're manipulating the moons distance and diameter and why pick 2 or 3 as a multiplier ? Whats the significance of these two values as you use them ?

And how does the above calculation equate to the spirals diameter ?
Doesn't that ignore the spirals height (altitude) above ground ?

Well since you said that the Moon's angular value is ~0.5 degrees I brought the Moon closer. I reduced it's distance and diameter by equal %. At this size and distance it's angular value should stay the same to the viewer. Since the spiral is at approximately same distance it should be a good comparison. If you raise the closer Moon's distance to 500km it's diameter should be 4,5km. 500km should be the same distance the spiral was at and Moon's angular valuse is still the same.

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.

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.

F-stop wrong. Theres no depth of field when focused to infinity. Well there is but it would also be pretty close to infinity. The one picture is blurry because the photographer moved or the wind blew.

Theres no way for you to know what the exposure was unless you have seen the exif data or the photographer told you. Is either of these true?

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.

Depth of field is not considered a blurred photograph since the subject is in focus. The one picture the subject is not in focus and I bet a detailed examinition of the photo will show everything is slightly blurred. This was movement.

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.

How is footage wrong? Because it shows what you wont admit, the spinning thrusters of a rocket? Fact is the exposure of the video doesnt have to be perfect and video cameras are a lot more adept at taking low light pictures than your normal digital SLR. What the video is showing are the pin points of light from the rocket engines, but since its a video there isnt enough time for the light from the spirals to be illuminated like in the pictures.

reply to post by Chevalerous


Shouldn't the Birkeland currents be aligned with the magnetosphere? And accompanied by auroras?
I doubt these currents would cause something like this.
But will do more research on this.

[edit on 14/12/2009 by DGFenrir]

reply to post by DGFenrir


If we assume the missile didn't go awry till the third stage, then Russia has "some splain'in to do", as they fired a shot across the bow of three countrys. I would rather not assume russia is that dumb.

reply to post by LordBaskettIV


The missile remained in their airspace all the time. Why are so many people saying that it was shot over Norway or Finland? We can all see the Moon at the same time. It doesn't have to be in our airspace. Especially if it's an object in LEO and is seen on the horizon.

The Tsar Bomba I mentioned earlier was detonated on Novaya Zemlya. It's explosion was no higher than 10km but it was seen in Finland. Does that mean that Finland got nuked?
Edit: The mushroom cloud was 70km high.

[edit on 14/12/2009 by DGFenrir]

reply to post by DGFenrir

Well since you said that the Moon's angular value is ~0.5 degrees I brought the Moon closer. I reduced it's distance and diameter by equal %. At this size and distance it's angular value should stay the same to the viewer. Since the spiral is at approximately same distance it should be a good comparison. If you raise the closer Moon's distance to 500km it's diameter should be 4,5km. 500km should be the same distance the spiral was at and Moon's angular valuse is still the same.

Ok, thanks ... thats clearer and I see what you're trying to do.

But if I understand correctly, you seem to be assuming that the spirals altitude/distance is definitely 500 kms from the ground based observers and saying its diameter is 4.5 kms ?

If so, then the apparent observed angular diameter would be

ATan(4.5 / 500)

which gives an apparent angular spiral diameter of only 0.5 (full moon diameter).

But most pictures showed an effect that was bigger than the full moon and that's the reason I used a doubled angular diameter value of 1 degree (0.5 x 2) in my calculations to take this larger effect into account.

reply to post by tauristercus


500km is an approximate.

You can multiplay the small Moon's diameter.

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by LordBaskettIV

 

The Tsar Bomba I mentioned earlier was detonated on Novaya Zemlya. It's explosion was no higher than 10km but it was seen in Finland. Does that mean that Finland got nuked?
Edit: The mushroom cloud was 70km high.

[edit on 14/12/2009 by DGFenrir]

Here's a description of the Tsar Bomb nuclear event:

The bomb was dropped from an altitude of 10.5 kilometres (6.5 mi); it was designed to detonate at a height of 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) over the land surface (4.2 kilometres (2.6 mi) over sea level) by barometric sensors.

The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane, and was seen and felt almost 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) from ground zero. The heat from the explosion could have caused third degree burns 100 km (62 miles) away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 kilometres (40 mi) high (nearly seven times higher than Mount Everest) and 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide.

Somehow I don't think there's much point in comparing this monster to the exhaust plume of a dinky missile !!

One possible explanation of the Norway sighting so that the missile WASN'T off course would be that the Russians launched it from the Atlantic Ocean instead of the White Sea.

Judging by the maps and trajectories and such, the missile would still hit the designated target zone AND fly over Norway... which would also explain why Sweden and Finland didn't witness a fly-by, since the missile never went over their respective countries.

What's more plausible, that an ICBM flew off in the wrong direction, to be seen by no one, OR that it was launched from a different location?

EDIT HERE

By the look of things, I would say that the White Sea is well within Russian territory, and that from where in the Atlantic the missile would have been launched from is international waters... perhaps the Russians tried to save face by stating the launch was from the White Sea so they they could not be attacked for having a missile test in international waters.

But, that's just my opinion.

[edit on 2009/12/14 by The Soothsayer]