Norway spiral in China today

It ticks me off when people start saying it was a failed Russian missile. Fist off,
why would Russia be firing a rocket over Norway's air space? I know Russia is a close neighbour to Norway, but you just don't go firing rockets over another country's air space.

How did another Russian rocket go over China? Was it another failed rocket as well? I have been doing some searching about spiral ufo's.I found that these things have been around a lot longer than the countries themselves. Google some images of pictographs from ancient times.

Originally posted by Sardean1269
It ticks me off when people start saying it was a failed Russian missile. Fist off,
why would Russia be firing a rocket over Norway's air space? I know Russia is a close neighbour to Norway, but you just don't go firing rockets over another country's air space.

How did another Russian rocket go over China? Was it another failed rocket as well? I have been doing some searching about spiral ufo's.I found that these things have been around a lot longer than the countries themselves. Google some images of pictographs from ancient times.

Sardean, why can't you read carefully before spouting off? Are you competing for the Emily Litella T-shirt award?

en.wikipedia.org...

The Dec 9 missile was never in Norway's airspace or even 'space-space'. And the Jan 11 case in China was caused by an officially-announced Chinese -- not Russian -- missile event. Nobody ever said different. If you think they did, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

People who want to camouflage their stuff as 'pseudo-UFOs' will keep doing it because legions of wooly-headed eager believers keep falling for it. Your approach is not part of the solution to the problem, it IS the problem.

Come on, pitch in and help out -- or at least if you can't, get out of the way and stop mindlessly endorsing the actual cover-uppers.



[edit on 21-1-2010 by JimOberg]

Honestly who really want's to learn Chinese, or believe what the Chinese government will spout its way?

reply to post by JimOberg


Russia at first denied that they had any missile launch, and then changed their story.

That is more than a little strange.

Have you come up with any proof of your cloud coverage theory?

Otherwise, the absence of Swedish, Finnish, and Russian reports of the Norway spiral prove that the missile test fire claims are complete nonsense.

Personally, I don't what is so far fetched about the idea that these spirals, which some are claiming have been seen many times, even long before mankind developed ICBM capabilities, could be a rarely seen phenomenon of nature.

The Norway spiral looks almost perfect. Even this spiral or round phenomenon in the picture on this thread looks like a perfect sphere. Why couldn't it be some nature plasma type phenomenon, like the Aurora Borealis?

Maybe the Russians saw the pictures and decided to claim it was a failed rocket launch to make the U.S. think they have an ICBM capable of making such maneuvers at hypersonic speeds?

Here's couple pictures of similar spirals.



With longer exposure:



These are not taken by me. I scanned them from a magazine. Photographer is Mitchell Krog. These were spotted in South Africa

"October 18th, weather satellite was launched from US Vandenberg space center.
Atlas Centaur launch vehicle pushed it into orbit. The spiral effect was probably caused by the launch vechiles fuel pump. The remaining fuel is pumped from the motors, that it wouldn't increase the danger in a possible crash. The fuel glows in space for awhile."

Now this was an harsh translation from the magazine, so sorry about that.
The other cases could be from similar events.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by Silenzio]

darn, a duplicate.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by Silenzio]

reply to post by Silenzio


I wonder how long the fuel glows in space.

They don't look like spirals, they look like fuel dumps.

Typically when a rocket goes off course, it is detonated, which wouldn't result in a fuel dump, but an explosion which looks very different.

Originally posted by poet1b
I wonder how long the fuel glows in space.

The fuel doesn't glow. It's not self-luminous. The reason it appears to glow is that sunlight hit's it and is reflected/refracted back to our eyes.

The "glow" would become less and less visible as the fuel disperses, but it can sometimes linger and is thought to produce displays of NLCs up to a day or two later as I recall.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by poet1b
I wonder how long the fuel glows in space.

The fuel doesn't glow. It's not self-luminous. The reason it appears to glow is that sunlight hit's it and is reflected/refracted back to our eyes.

Stop bothering poet with real-world facts. He's on a roll, proclaiming the reality of dreamt-up phenomena in his own imaginary world, where he is the best-informed smart guy in sight. He's happy, and hopeless, and a waste of time.

reply to post by JimOberg


Why do you keep on this Spiral Issue so much? Why is it so important to you? Do you think you are going to change everyone's minds?

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left- wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

Why do you use such disinformation tactics?

reply to post by JimOberg


I know Jim... but I'd like to think that if you keep bombarding people with real info, eventually some of it will start to sink in.

It might miss it's mark (poet) but perhaps others may learn something.

You know, I ve been following this pissing contest for some time now between Mr. Oberg and a certain Poet; but some real issues haven't been addressed at all. Number One in my mind is why did Russia retract the initial statement that it wasn.t them? For a sovereign country like Russia with their history to actually do a complete 180 degree like that is huge. Also; if this event did in fact take place over the White sea, it was an immense phenomenon. Truly large. Can a Buluva actually cause this much space to be filled up? Also; I havent seen too many people actually address the obvious perfection of the spiral - It s a damn near perfect spiral. This may seem like a spurious point but it is not. It goes to the heart of why the whole phenomenon is controversial and attention getting in the first place. I don t dismiss that an amazingly perfet spiral could happen by accident, but I really havent see any experts so far trying to estimate that chance. I would guess that a nearly (really) perfect spiral is not the usual result of a malfunction. But of course I could be wrong.

First, i had a couple... like 20 Kahuama (1 ltr mexican) beers before posting this.

Second, "Norway spiral?" really? Norway? china spiral maybe, so each and every spiral that comes along from now on will be Norway's spiral?

Third, why is George playing music Art Bell use to play? "Some Velvet Morning" i just got home and tuned in c2c and that's the first thing its on. sell sell sell.

ok. back again with on topic, first please do not label all sky's weird stuff as "Norway blah blah blah", because, it did NOT happen in Norway, second, it doesn't look at all like what happened in Norway.

Are we on the same track now?

Have i missed previous posts that make my post useless? yeah? nope? don't know, but i do know, this is NOT Norway's spiral, as far as i can say, this did not happened in Norway or did it? so please avoid that kind of expressions they really don't fit.

Thanks



[edit on 23-1-2010 by Kaifan]

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Kaifan]

The Earthquake Lights thing is unreal. I have never even seen or heard of that before. Thanks for something new to research.

reply to post by liquidself


That's poet1b.

Thanks for pointing out the details that the spiraling rocket crowd must ignore in order to believe their naive theory. Rockets simply do not spiral like this. How in the world could we get this perfect spiral?

It is the bad taste in their mouth that makes them spit bile instead of attempting to explain their position with logic and reason.

We have the launch point and the target, and if this is correct, and there is no reason to believe it is not correct, then if this was a rocket, it was not going directly away from the people in Norway, but at an angle of 45 degrees. Even if the rocket spirals out of control, being that it is moving forward at mach 5 or greater, probably a much greater speed, it still would have moved forward, so we should be looking at something that looks alot more like a spring, not a perfect spiral.

The only explanation that I have seen that could possibly be what created this spiral is a fuel leak or dump. If rocket fuel sprayed out without being mixed with oxygen to ignite, from a picture posted recently of a fuel dump in space, it could form a spiral. Once again, say the rocket is spinning as the fuel sprays out into space, still, we should be seeing something that looks like a spring, when the angle at which the rocket was crossing the sky in relation to Norway is taken into consideration.

I have to admit, the odds are in favor of a rocket explanation, but there is more than enough room for speculation. If this was caused by the rocket failure, it still seems that something else, some other force besides gravity and vacuum, was in play here to create such a spiral.

Not only did Russia first deny, then confirm the launch, they haven't given a time for the launch, only a time window.

Why would we need a confirmation from Russia?

We have eyes all over the planet. I know the cold war is over, but with the whole star wars research still ongoing, current territorial disputes over the Arctic territory and oil drilling rights, I find it hard to believe that Norway, Sweden, Britain, the U.S., and everyone with the capability, wasn't watching to see what would happen in this latest Russian ICBM test.

Why didn't we get a confirmation from those monitoring for the launch, that a launch was detected in the White Sea?

I wonder if the guy who took the gate photo isn't in negotiations with some marketing company to sell posters, screen savers, and all that. It seems that a lot of clams could be going a fisherman's way. Time to party in the tropics.

Some grownups are discussing the question over at
www.armscontrolwonk.com...

I’ve been working on a rather long piece about the recent Chinese Ballistic Missile Defense test but persistent reports of an eyewitness (complete with photos) have sidetracked me. These reports purport to be from a Chinese citizen who appears to have witnessed multiple flashes/explosions. (The original English translation seems to have disappeared, luckily I printed it out to pdf, which can be viewed here.) The question is: are these credible reports/photos?

and

Chinese BMD Test: Illuminated by the Sun?
posted jan 23 2 pm cst
www.armscontrolwonk.com...

I am starting to conclude that the “eyewitness” to the Chinese missile defense test is probably real, the reported time (7:45 pm, “local time”) is reasonable, and the target vehicle was most likely a relatively short range missile such as the DF-21.

Observe and learn.

Originally posted by liquidself
Also; if this event did in fact take place over the White sea, it was an immense phenomenon. Truly large. Can a Buluva actually cause this much space to be filled up?

If the white exhaust is exiting the rear nozzle, I think it should be possible to account for one of the white exhaust trails as my understanding is that the exhaust velocity should be about 2,700 meters per second (source 1, source 2) - that could give you a 629 kilometer diameter spiral in as little as (assuming the nozzle is at a right angle to the missile's axis of rotation) 116 seconds, or 1 minute 56 seconds. (Using the measurements from the evaluation at spellconsulting.com.) (And if it hasn't been pointed out previously, this page states that the third stage of the Bulava has a 56 second burn time; I don't know how long the exhaust for the white spiral was being expelled, though - just that it'd take a Bulava missile 116 seconds to create the dissipating white spiral seen in photo #4 at spellconsulting.com.)

But without making several significant assumptions, I don't know how a solid fuel missile would create this (though I will add that I had forgotten about the possibility of the Bulava as having thrusters while writing an earlier post - though I don't know if it does or does not), especially when the Russians just said that the missile test failed because the third stage was "unstable":



...and a video that clearly shows that the spiral has two white arms.

reply to post by eupeptic


So the third stage is sold rocket propellant, which means it can not be a fuel leak. I had just assumed the third stage was liquid fueled.

With the direction of the trajectory going across the scene of view from which the photos were taken, it the rocket began to spin out of control in space without atmospheric resistance, it still should have continued on its course, and we should be seeing a corkscrew, and not a perfect spiral.

No one has yet to come up with any photos of a rocket failure that looks anything like this spiral, but there have been pictures of corkscrews put up.

This is what is being reported as the possible cause for the Bulava failure.

research.scottrade.com...

The source said that the reason for the failure of [the launch] of the Bulava missile was a break-down in the operation of the solid-fuel engine of the third stage. It is possible that a burn-through occurred in the engine's wall, which led to a change in the trajectory of the missile's flight and its self-destruction.

Here is a good video of what solid fueled rocket failures look like.

www.youtube.com...

I don't know how Russia mixes its solid fueled rocket propellant, but typically one would expect aluminum powder as the fuel, with an oxidizer to provided the oxygen component, which means once it starts burning it continues to burn until the fuel is exhausted. You can not put out an aluminum fire. If these are pictures of a solid fueled rocket failure, we should be looking at something that looks like a star burst, like a fireworks display, not a spiral.

Where is the starburst?