Norway spiral in China today, page 12

privacy

Pages: << 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 41 times

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 06:13 AM by eupeptic

Originally posted by poet1b
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.

Actually, if you mean that the "rings" in the left side of the spiral (as viewed from Norway) should be compressed (as I was thinking for a while - as it just seems intuitive) while the right side would be expanded (as shown in the side view of the first simulation on YouTube, as well as this additional simulation), since the object is in motion and there is little significant acceleration (or deceleration) throughout it's trajectory, the left and right sides of the spiral will be travelling along at about the same velocity as the object (minus the difference in velocity due to being expelled from the object). (Hopefully this description makes sense - the main thing that allows the spiral to look mostly circular is the lack of acceleration/deceleration in the object.)

Just for illustration, the circle I created in the image below is centered where the object is at the center of the spiral - this makes it much easier to see what kind of an effect atmospheric drag has on the exhaust from the object:

If anyone's interested, I have put together a total of 381 images from the Norway spiral, the recent event in China (though there are only 4 images of that - all linked from this thread), and past events in China and Russia (the latter is in the 'misc' directory) in this file:

norway spiral.zip (30.6 MB)

Also, using the names of the photographers and an online Norwegian phone book I put together this file for Google Earth that has the approximate locations for 50 people (with a few that are exact/verified) who have taken pictures of the spiral (their pictures with their names added to the filenames are in the previous zip file). (Note that there's only one Dagfinn Rapp in the phone book which places him in Southern Norway, but this page states where he was to take the picture he took so I put in both locations; similarly, I put in Karen Elisabeth Hough Bjørndalen's home address and the GPS location from the picture taken with her iPhone 3G):

norway spiral - google earth.zip

Lastly, poet1b, since you were asking about the exposure time and lens used for some of the pictures, the only two pictures I've found that have Exif information are Karen's (on her blog, linked above), and this one taken by Jan Petter Jørgensen. I don't have the space to post all the Exif info from Jan Petter's picture, but the exposure was for 1 second exactly and the focal length was 41 mm (times 1.576 [35 divided by 22.2] gives you a 35 mm equivalent focal length of 64.6 mm). If you put 41 and 1.576 (under 'Digital multiplier', since the camera's sensor is smaller than 35 mm film) into the calculator on this page you can get the width and height of the field of view in degrees. This page has the 35 mm equivalent focal length for the iPhone 3GS camera so you can compare the size of the spiral in the two pictures. (I haven't done so.)

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 08:12 AM by JimOberg

Some views of previous sightings of spiral-like rocket launch effects

Finland, October 25, 1983

Russian magazine, 1990s

Arkhangelsk newspaper, 1991

Pilot’s notebook, September 1984

[edit on 25-1-2010 by JimOberg]

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 09:18 AM by poet1b

reply to post by eupeptic

Interesting stuff, seems like you have done a lot of work.

Great set of pictures, thanks for putting this together.

An exposure of around one second was what I was guessing at, so that makes sense. Did you get the information on what type of camera Jan Petter was using? I didn't quite get that from the information you posted. That is quite an amazing picture he took.

When you look at the outer circles of the spiral, it appears that the curvature is largest on the top, when I would think if gravity was coming into play, it would be larger on the bottom, and not the top. If we are looking at exhaust trails, I would think that the gravity would be pulling them downward, and that if this could be a rocket moving in ever tightening circles, its speed would be greatest when it is moving downward into the well of gravity.

Something you stated in the post before last that I would like to address.

(assuming the nozzle is at a right angle to the missile's axis of rotation)

The thing is, the maximum angle the cone is probably designed to achieve in relation to the X axis of the rocket is most likely less than 10 degrees, more like 3 degrees with a total range of 6 or 7 degrees. Rockets simply are not capable of making sharp turns. At hypersonic speeds, a slight change in direction is more than adequate. By the time the 3rd stage had fired, the missile was most likely going faster than mach 5. From my understanding, if some side force causes the rocket to change attitude more than a few degrees, it cause the rocket to tumble and self destruct. This is essentially what the article in your link in that post is stating as I pointed out in my reply.

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.

In addition, in order for this missile to have created the spiral seen from Norway in these picture it would have had to make more than one course change. One course change to head towards the direction needed to present this spiral profile, and second to establish the direction it needed to present the spiral profile, and then lastly a change to create the spiral. This just seems extremely unlikely. Add this to your estimation that in order to create this spiral the third stage would have had to burn longer than it was designed to burn, it doesn't seem possible for this third stage malfunction to create the spiral we see in the pictures.

Notice the corkscrew blue spiral. It is biggest at the center of the spiral, and gets smaller, the further distance it gets from the spiral. This is exactly the opposite of what it should look like, as demonstrated by all the other pictures or rockets. In all the other pictures of rockets, the rocket is the point, and the plume behind the rocket get bigger the farther it is away from the rocket. How is it that this blue corkscrew plume is just the opposite of all of the other rocket photos.

The blue corkscrew looks like something came out of the spiral, and sped off into the distance. This makes the whole wormhole concept seem like an realistic guess.

Being that we are mainly talking about the Norway spiral, we might want to move our discussion to this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit to change unrealistic guess to realistic guess, don't know why I made that mistake.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by poet1b]

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 09:24 AM by poet1b

reply to post by JimOberg

Only one of your links is a picture. The rest are drawings.

Do you have any background information in this picture in your first link to establish that this is the result of a rocket test?

It could very well be just another example of the phenomenon we see in these pictures in Norway, and has no link whatsoever to a rocket.

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 10:22 AM by Ganymede44

If you look at the front cover of an inconvenient truth by Al Gore,The spiral is exactly the same as the ones in Norway and China,I think it may have something to do with galactic central point alignment 2012,and earth changes towards the coming Golden age

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 10:51 AM by JimOberg

Originally posted by poet1b
When you look at the outer circles of the spiral, it appears that the curvature is largest on the top, when I would think if gravity was coming into play, it would be larger on the bottom, and not the top. If we are looking at exhaust trails, I would think that the gravity would be pulling them downward, and that if this could be a rocket moving in ever tightening circles, its speed would be greatest when it is moving downward into the well of gravity.

Poet, it's advice you'll never take but I gotta try again. All of your "I-would-think" assumptions are wrong. What you 'think' OUGHT to be in the universe, isn't. Consequently, all of your logical deductions are spurious. You really have to open your mind wider than your internal fantasies and try to hitch your conclusions to reality.

The spiral is not caused by a rocket zooming in ever widening circles. It is caused by a spinning object spewing material linearly from it, like a rotating lawn sprinkler. The stuff moves away and fades out within a few seconds. We can't judge the speed of the spewing because we can't tell how much of the spew vector is 'into' the observer's line of sight.

What do you estimate the spin rate of the spewing object? In other words, how fast is the 'refresh' rate of the spiral as it is painted on the sky?

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 10:53 AM by JimOberg

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg

Only one of your links is a picture. The rest are drawings.

Correct. People in Russia in the 1980s were not prone to carrying digital camcorders in their pockets. Is that a reason to discount what they report having seen?

Weren't you earlier claiming that there were NO images EVER of a similar phenomenon? Would you now admit that this assertion of faux-fact was based purely on personal ignorance, not on investigations into reality? Would you? In this ONE case?

[edit on 25-1-2010 by JimOberg]

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 11:32 AM by poet1b

reply to post by JimOberg

Actually, most of my assumptions tend to be pretty accurate, like for instance the shutter time on the gate photo. It is what has always allowed me to succeed as an exceptional troubleshooter.

You need to stop trying to assume how my brain works, because you haven't a clue.

Here is a hint, I assume nothing. I think of the possibilities, and then assign them probability, keeping an open mind as new facts become available.

Your spinning projectile theory is completely without merit. If the rocket was spinning and so sending its plume spirally out away from it, then it would still be traveling forward at hypersonic speed at a 45 degree angle from the perspective of Norway.

The point you ignore is that this would create a corkscrew, not a spiral.

I said there are no pictures of spirals known to be created by rockets.

Just because you assume that all spirals must be created by rockets doesn't make it so.

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 12:02 PM by JimOberg

Originally posted by poet1b

Your spinning projectile theory is completely without merit. If the rocket was spinning and so sending its plume spirally out away from it, then it would still be traveling forward at hypersonic speed at a 45 degree angle from the perspective of Norway.

The point you ignore is that this would create a corkscrew, not a spiral.

Utter baloney.

Material ejected sideways from a spinning rocket moves radially away from the rocket but also moves forward with practically the same velocity as the rocket. So it paints a nearly flat plane with an expanding spiral (the spiral is not 'spinning' -- its discrete elements are all moving linearly away from their point of origin).

On what misinterpretation of basic physics do you insist it 'should' (there you go again, ordering nature to conform to YOUR imagination) form a corkscrew?

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 12:16 PM by poet1b

reply to post by JimOberg

Even in space there is some atmospheric drag.

Even then the material would have to be ejected at a nineties degree angle from the rocket, and then maintain not only the same speed, but also somehow the same rate of acceleration of the accelerationg firing rocket.

Even then, the created spiral would be at an angle to Norway, which it isn't.

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 12:42 PM by JimOberg

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JimOberg

Even in space there is some atmospheric drag.

Even then the material would have to be ejected at a nineties degree angle from the rocket, and then maintain not only the same speed, but also somehow the same rate of acceleration of the accelerationg firing rocket.

Yeah, I kinda suspected this might be the basis of your misunderstanding, but I hoped you'd be explicit enough in your own words to allow it to be tested. Thank you for doing so.

Why should the departing material making up the spiral have to maintain the same acceleration of the rocket as it fires? "Close enough" is good enough.

In my inspection of the videos of the turning object and resulting spiral, I get an approx rotation rate of about 1.2 seconds -- please, folks, check this yourself and post what you observe.

More importantly, I get a duration of about 8 seconds before the departing material fades to background black. Watch the videos yourselves -- see the time from one a spray is emitted until it moves so far out, and thins so much, it's no longer visible. Or watch the edge of the 'black hole' (marking the cessation of spray) expand.

If the material is thruster exhaust, that's about 10,000 ft/sec, for a spiral radius of about 80,000 ft, and a diameter twice that. Do the math for an object about 600 miles away, that makes a spiral a few degrees across -- maybe several times the apparent size of the moon. That's consistent with eyewitness accounts -- folks, please post any other data related to this question.

During the 8 seconds that the spiral is expanding, before it fades into invisibility, how much 'ahead' of the outermost rim of the spiral would the center part have gotten?

Math can tell us. Poet's imagination cannot.

S = 0.5 x A x T**2

so if A is, say, 3 G's -- 100 ft/sec/sec -- then the rocket would be 2% of the spiral's diameter in advance of the outer rim.

Two percent.

On a 5" CD, that's 1/10 of an inch. Can you even see that amount of 'unflatness' when you glance at it?

EDIT ADD: That's less than the thickness of two pennies.

That's what I called "almost flat". Undetectable to an eyewitness, probably unmeasurable to any photogrammetric examination of the images.

That's what Poet calls a 'corkscrew'.

I invite Poet, or anybody who trusts his interpretation, to try pulling a cork with a corkscrew anywhere NEAR that flat.

Pffft.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by JimOberg]

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 12:59 PM by eupeptic

Did you get the information on what type of camera Jan Petter was using?

Canon EOS 450D

When you look at the outer circles of the spiral, it appears that the curvature is largest on the top, when I would think if gravity was coming into play, it would be larger on the bottom, and not the top. If we are looking at exhaust trails, I would think that the gravity would be pulling them downward, and that if this could be a rocket moving in ever tightening circles, its speed would be greatest when it is moving downward into the well of gravity.

If it was a small spiral that's not that far from the ground and the exhaust had more mass than the atmosphere that is in then that would make sense, but as it's large it takes time for something that high up to fall to earth. The main difference between the top and bottom of the spiral is the thickness of the atmosphere it's in - there's more air resistance at the bottom of the spiral that slows down the exhaust as it travels towards the earth.

(assuming the nozzle is at a right angle to the missile's axis of rotation)

The main thing I was getting at here is that the missile would likely have to align itself so that the exhaust is perpendicular to the observers' line of sight in Norway and then only rotate (at a rate of about 3.5 to 4.5 seconds per 360 degree rotation) on that axis. The easiest way for me to illustrate this right now is to have you look at a model of the Bulava's trajectory (AFAIK) that I found at this link (it's a 7 MB video even though it has an EXE extension) from a discussion on a Russian message board:

Look at the window on the bottom left and note the yellow line and circle - while I haven't come across a detailed description of what's in this video, it appears to me that the line represents the line of sight from Tromsø, and the circle represents a 2-dimensional plane that would be seen from Tromsø - a missile would likely have to be rotating so that the exhaust coming out of its engine would be mostly aligned with that circle - otherwise it'd look less like a circle and more like what is shown in this simulation.

One course change to head towards the direction needed to present this spiral profile, and second to establish the direction it needed to present the spiral profile, and then lastly a change to create the spiral.

My opinion is that the spiral we saw could have been created by what I just described above.

Add this to your estimation that in order to create this spiral the third stage would have had to burn longer than it was designed to burn, it doesn't seem possible for this third stage malfunction to create the spiral we see in the pictures.

Actually I was just saying that that much time would need to elapse for a missile to create the spiral that as large in diameter as shown in photo #4 - that photo includes a portion of time in which the object had ceased producing white exhaust. I don't know how much time had elapsed from the time the white exhaust started being expelled until that picture was taken - but if it was about 1 minute 56 seconds then it could have been created by a missile high above the earth.

Being that we are mainly talking about the Norway spiral, we might want to move our discussion to this thread.

I've been posting in this thread as I've been under the impression that of the current active threads, this one is in the best forum to openly discuss this subject.

And lastly, I happened to find this today, which is from Wiltshire, UK, on June 23rd, 2002:

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 01:16 PM by JimOberg

Originally posted by eupeptic

Good stuff. But I don't know where those ground tracks come from. Just getting a globe and a string and running it from the White Sea to southern Kamchatka [edit from "Sakhalin" brain-f*rt] (the Kura impact range) shows a ground track significantly to the south of the ones shown.

let's mull this over.

re formation of the spiral -- I measured a 1.2 sec or so 'spin period' on the dispensing object [other inputs solicited] so even with a spiral that has 12 strands that's still only about 15 seconds to create the formation seen in the images. Then it has to 'last' (be recreated continuously), and I don't have a good minimum or maximum estimate for that period, based on the videos -- help is wanted here.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by JimOberg]

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 02:58 PM by poet1b

reply to post by JimOberg

Ah, mystery solved.

When you start counting the spirals, you can see the corkscrew. The missile is curving up and to the left in the gate photo. This explains everything. The trajectory of the missile changes so that at the time the picture was taken, the missile is moving almost directly away from the point of observation, thus the spiral becomes more of a circle than a corkscrew. The blue corkscrew is the exhaust of the main thruster firing. It becomes thicker because instead of looking at the exhaust from the side, you are looking directly into the main thruster exhaust so it is thicker and is expanding in a circle.

This is the explanation that no one seems to have noticed.

It would seem that the rocket trajectory would be more erratic, but apparently not.

reply posted on 25-1-2010 @ 05:28 PM by JimOberg