Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

page: 1
315
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+280 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
In an earlier thread that I made shortly after the December 9, 2009 Norway Spiral event, I attempted to make a case to show that the failed Bulava missile explanation was inadequate to explain the observed effects and that there had to be an alternative explanation.
That thread (and explanation) was primarily based on a photo of a very intricate and well defined spiral that was stated as having been taken around the Tromso area.
Based on the detail obtained from that photo, it appeared that the failed missile scenario simply did not fit and that all indications were that the spiral itself apparently was very much closer than the White Sea location where it was stated the Bulava had been launched. In fact, indications were that the spiral was in fact quite close to Tromso itself and located directly over Norwegian territory. This naturally led to the "finger of guilt" being pointed at the EISCAT ionospheric research station located not far from Tromso itself, as being (in)directly responsible for the spiral creation event.

However, even though the EISCAT facility made a very convenient scape goat on which to pin the event, it proved very difficult to come up with sufficient hard technological evidence that would implicate EISCAT beyond any doubt as the originators of the spiral event.
Even so, I was still prepared to accept an EISCAT solution in preference to a failed missile test, despite the lack of corroborating and indisputable evidence ... that is, until other researchers dropped the bombshell that the photo that was originally attributed to having been taken at Tromso (and used to create my original analysis), had in actuality been taken approximately 88 kms north-east of Tromso at a location called Skjervoy. As a result of this disclosure, I had to accept the realization that my earlier research, and therefore conclusions, were consequently flawed.


So I decided to go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and attempt a fresh analysis. This time I decided that it was imperative to find other photos of the spiral event and using these, to try to estimate as closely as possible the most probable location for the spiral and if possible, calculate accurate dimensions, distances and altitudes.


It took a while but I was eventually able to find 6 locations in Norway and 1 location in Sweden that had produced photos of the spiral event ... and most importantly, photos that contained definitive details allowing the eventual "triangulation" of various stages of the spiral event.
Now I use the phrase "various stages" as it become quite obvious that in contradiction to reported eye witness accounts that the spiral appeared to become stationary in the sky, this was in reality not the case, as I will demonstrate later.


The following are the locations (and associated photos) that I used in my re-analysis of the spiral event:

Norway
- Skjervoy
- Tromso
- Harstad
- Storsteinnes
- Anstad
- Markenes

Sweden
- Puoltsa





Skjervoy images
The following 5 images have become extremely associated in the publics mind with regard to the Norway Spiral event of 9 December, 2009.

These images are shown in time sequence order to illustrate the various "phases" of the event and most importantly to illustrate the fact that at no time was the spiral event a "stationary" one as often reported but in actuality an event that evolved over time.

Image1

Image2

Image3

Image4

Image5



To illustrate the "non-stationary" aspect of the event, I have combined Images1, 2 and 3, scaling as appropriate based on the background Kvanangstinder mountains.
This superposition immediately demonstrates that the spiral followed a definitive trajectory as well as dramatically increasing in size over time.

Image6



Tromso images
Rather than providing a photo of the event, the Tromso contribution was actually a short video recording.
Initially it appeared that there was insufficient detail to allow the derivation of the spiral direction but thankfully the initial frames of the video contained an essential clue that allowed this sighting to be used.

In the following frame captured from the video, we see the town of Tromso and the spiral in the background. Unfortunately the mountains are to dark to be of any use in attempting to determine the location of the observer. However, there is visible in the frame a very famous building known as the Arctic Cathedral.

Image7


Using this as a reference point, then allowed an accurate estimation of the observers location which could be used later in the analysis.

Image8




Harstad images
The only image from Harstad is of the final dissipation stage of the spiral.

Image9


The following is a Google Earth view of the background Harstad mountains as they would have appeared in the early morning of 9 Dec, 2009.

Image10


The following is an overlay of Image9 and 10, scaled to the background mountains to show that the observer location has been identified in GE.

Image11



Storsteinnes images
The only image from Storsteinnes is of the midpoint stage of the spiral.

Image12


The following is a Google Earth view of the background Storsteinnes mountains as they would have appeared in the early morning of 9 Dec, 2009.

Image13


The following is an overlay of Image12 and 13, scaled to the background mountains to show that the observer location has been identified in GE.

Image14



Anstad images
The only image from Anstad is of the midpoint dissipation stage of the spiral.

Image15


The following is a Google Earth view of the background Storsteinnes mountains as they would have appeared in the early morning of 9 Dec, 2009.

Image16


The following is an overlay of Image15 and 16, scaled to the background mountains to show that the observer location has been identified in GE.

Image17




Continued next post ....



+39 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Continued from previous post ...



Location: Markenes
The only image from Markenes is of the midpoint stage of the spiral event.

Image18


The following is a Google Earth view of the background Markenes mountains as they would have appeared in the early morning of 9 Dec, 2009.

Image19


The following is an overlay of Image18 and 19, scaled to the background mountains to show that the observer location has been identified in GE.

Image20



Location: Puoltsa
The only image from Puoltsa is of the midpoint stage of the spiral event.

Image21


The Puoltsa image by itself is lacking an identifiable background that could be used to establish a definitive Google Earth match. However, the observer report states
"The photo was taken by one Patrik Ohman, on his way to work in Kiruna."

Examining a map, we find that there is only one main road leading to Kiruna. This road goes almost due SE for a short distance from Puoltsa before turning northward to Kiruna, therefore the view of the spiral event would be in an easterly direction as evidenced by the photo.

Image22


Even with the lack of a suitable background to place the photo location exactly, the short stretch of road, compared to the much greater distance to the event itself, will not introduce any significant error. Even so, the Puoltsa photo will only be used to confirm the final event location, and not be used in the initial triangulation.



Identification of Event Location
Using the above observation points, it becomes straightforward to quite accurately plot and locate the vicinity in which the events took place.

Firstly, lets take an overview of these locations as they appear on the map.

Image23


Next, bearings are taken from each observer location based on the above publically available photos and observe where these bearings intersect on the map.

Image24



Now the estimated locations are as far as I can ascertain, relatively accurate but there is an additional test that can be applied to these locations to raise confidence in their accuracy.
All of these locations fall EXACTLY on a "great circle" path ... a "great circle" is the shortest location between 2 points on a sphere.
In the following image, it can be readily seen that these 5 estimated locations do indeed map perfectly onto a great circle segment.

Image25


And if this great circle segment is extended, we have yet another confirmation of the validity of these locations as the extended great circle trajectory that the missile would presumably have followed to minimize fuel requirements, intersects perfectly with the Russian missile target location downrange at the Kamchatka Penninsula.

Image26


We are now in a position to make an educated guestimate for the initial launch area of the Bulava missile.

Image27




Analysis

We can now attempt to make some estimates regarding the physical characteristics of the spiral event and in this instance will focus on the clearly identified components B through F as indicated in the following image.

We are especially interested in obtaining distance, altitude and size information at each of these 5 unique points.

B = Point at which exhaust trail ends and blue spiral begins
C = Initial spiral location
D = Secondary spiral location
E = Commencement of spiral dissipation
F = Final stage of dissipation

The initial analysis will begin with an attempt to determine approximate altitudes associated with each of the points. To do this, we need to obtain a reference angle that can be scaled to each of the points. Thankfully such a reference angle is easily obtained by using the westernmost summit of the Kvanangstinder mountains identified at point A in the following image.

Using Google Earth, we obtain an elevation of 718 metres and a distance of 13,800 kms from the Skjervoy observer to this summit. Some simple trigonometry yields an observation angle of 2.96 degrees - this will become our reference elevation angle that we can subsequently scale to obtain elevation angles for points B through F.

Image28


Using the reference angle for point A of 2.96 degrees, we obtain the following elevation angles:

B = 3.45 degrees
C = 8.88 degrees
D = 9.86 degrees
E = 12.82 degrees
F = 13.32 degrees


Using these elevation angles and the distances from Skjervoy to the spiral event locations in the White Sea area, we can calculate an equivalent altitude for each point. However, it has to be kept in mind that these altitudes do NOT take into account the curvature of the Earth, which considering the distance between the observers and the White Sea locations derived earlier, will become significant. Because the amount of curvature is considerable in this case, we need to not only determine the altitude of each point above the Skjervoy horizon as seen by the observer, we also need to adjust/increase this altitude by taking into account the curvature of the Earth and the altitude below the observers local horizon.

Image29


The following table summarizes the altitudes of each spiral event point.
Points B through F show the altitudes of these points as they evolve over time.

Table1



Image30


Image31


Image32


Image33


The following image is a summary of the the various calculated distances, altitudes, etc of points B through F as they evolved through time.
Notice that points E & F which represent 2 phases of the spiral dissipation actually occur well above the atmosphere and definitely within the orbital parameters of the space shuttle.

Image34




Continued next post ...


+33 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Continued from previous post ...



All images of the event show the spiral being observed in full frontal view ... in other words, the spiral was seen with very little skewing, distortion and definitely not edge on.
But here we have a problem especially as evident from the Skjervoy location.
At this location, the trajectory of the missile is approximately NNE and crossing the observers viewpoint from right to left. This trajectory is well established and not open to dispute. Therefore we need to find a mechanism that will allow the full frontal creation and viewing of the spiral from the observers point of view.

With the missile crossing from right to left, the missile must be in one of two distinct attitudes whilst in flight:
1 - The missile is stable and following the determined trajectory. The missile will also have spin imparted to assist with inflight stability. This missile is essentially rotating around it's axis.
2 - The missile is unstable and tumbling end over end. There will also be residual rotation around its axis.


The following image shows the missile in stable mode along its trajectory and rotating around it's axis. The two "blowouts" have been indicated in red and positioned 180 degrees apart as conjectured.
But if this is correct, then any spiral that forms can only be viewed by a Skjervoy observer from edge on ... almost 90 degrees displaced from what was actually observed.

Image35



The following image shows scenario two whereby the missile has lost stability and is tumbling end over end.

The first problem here being that if the missile is tumbling, then it would be almost impossible for it to continue following its original trajectory as thrust vectors would be constantly changing ... and consequently its path would likewise be changing ... and yet as can be readily seen from the previously presented overlayed images (Image6), the spiral path adhered exactly to the established trajectory throughout the entire evolution of the spiral event.
The second problem is that a combination of the 3 vectors comprising the forward motion, end over end tumbling and rotation around the missiles axis, would prevent the formation of a near perfect spiral structure. Any spiral structure forming would very quickly lose stability and integrity.

Image36



So the inevitable conclusion is that a stable, front on viewed spiral would be impossible to create and maintain over an extended period of time based on the possible missile flight attitude modes.



Finally, one observation that I believe has not been made by or commented on by anyone so far.
If we take a look at the Skjervoy image (Image3) that shows the initial stage of spiral dissipation, we see what at 1st glance appears to be an expanding circular region of darkness. It has been suggested by others that this is nothing more than the background dark sky beginning to show through again as the spiral material begins to fade away or dissipate towards the end of the event.

However, closer inspection appears to suggest that the dark void is not simply a 2 dimensional disk shape but may in fact be a 3 dimensional dark "globe" structure. The primary indication of its 3d structure is evidenced by the blue funnel shaped structure not completely covering the dark void from edge to edge, but instead apparently having a well defined boundary that stops far short of reaching the edge of the void.
You could liken it to an example where you have a flexible tube with a wide opening into which you're trying to force a much bigger spherical shaped object ... think of trying to force a bowling ball into a flexible tube that can stretch only so far ... the bowling ball will get stuck only part way into the tube opening after it has been stretched to its maximum. The important part of this analogy is that every part of the tube opening is in contact with the surface of the larger globe ... exactly as seen in that Skjervoy image.

I've taken that image and to show more clearly what I'm talking about, have reversed the colours and increased saturation levels. As can be readily seen, the funnel rim appears to be in complete contact with the globes surface but without touching the edges of the void.

Image37




Summary

Based on published observer images and using Google Earth, it was possible to exactly locate each of the observers positions at the time of the event and to plot these locations on Google Earth. Using these plotted locations, it was possible to pinpoint by "triangulation" the original location/position of various stages within the evolution of the spiral phenomena with very good accuracy.

These plotted origins were immediately commensurate with the theory of a "failed" Russian missile test conducted in the early hours of 9 Dec, 2009 from a location within the White Sea missile test area. To add weight to this corroboration, the origin points could all be plotted with high accuracy on a great circle track which when extended from the White Sea location, proceeded in the direction of, and ended directly within the Kamchatka Penninsula missile target range.

Based on the calculated trajectory, it becomes immediately apparent that at no point in time does the missile leave Russian territory and most definitively does NOT enter Norwegian air space or territory. This is in complete agreement with the lack of official Norwegian, Swedish, etc government comments on any incursions by the Russian missile test. In fact, the trajectory indicates conclusively that the missile was travelling away from Norway and that its entire trajectory would remain completely over Russian territory.

Being the most detailed, the Skjervoy images were subjected to mathematical analysis to obtain reasonable estimates of angular measurements, altitudes and diameters pertaining to various stages or "points" of the spiral evolution.
The conclusion obtained indicates that the majority of the event took place at an extremely high altitude ... most certainly above the atmosphere and into low orbit space. The final stages of the event apparently reached an altitude at which the space shuttle operates.

Finally, potential positional attitudes that the missile could have taken as it traversed the Skjervoy skies were analysed and the conclusion reached that there was no apparent physical explanation that could satisfactorily make use of a "conjectured fuel ejection blowout" on opposite sides of the missile to produce and maintain a near perfect spiral for a period of time.

In conclusion, it is agreed that the event was to a high degree of probability, triggered by the launch of a Russian missile.
It is agreed that to a high degree of probability, that EISCAT and similar HAARP type technology was not employed and was not responsible for the spiral event.

Analysis indicates that contrary to "official explanations", the spiral event was not apparently triggered by a 3rd stage failure or malfunction and that the spiral event itself was not a random and unexpected side effect of the missile launch.
The emerging conclusion is that the series of Bulava missile launches over the last few years and their significant "failure rates" may in fact be a cover for the testing and observation of either a radical new propulsion technology or for the testing and observation of a new defense technology.



Continued next post ...


+26 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Continued from previous post ...



One should bear in mind that Russia has over 50 years of tested and proven missile launch, navigation and targeting technology incorporated into its missile fleet ... so the continuous failures of well understood and trialled launch technology is somewhat inexplicable. Also consider the fact that the Bulava missile series is a derivative of the highly successful Topol M missile series and one would expect the experience and technology that created the Topols would be incorporated into the Bulava series ... the Bulava's were NOT created from scratch.
Also Russia has made known publicly that the Bulava series will have unprecedented features and abilities, the most notable being its ability to perform evasive maneuvering, mid-course countermeasures, decoys and a warhead fully shielded against both physical and electromagnetic pulse damage. In fact, the Bulava is designed to be capable of surviving a nuclear blast at a minimum distance of 500 metres.

So, would it be not inconceivable for Russia to try to divert global attention away from any new technology testing by claiming multiple and successive failures in something as elementary as the solid fueled propulsion system ? Would public amusement and ridicule be worth the price to pay for the ability to covertly test radical new technology with almost minimal scrutiny ?

I think so ....


[Edit: to show a space view perspective of what the spiral event may have looked like if viewed from above the atmosphere.
Note that I have scaled the spirals so that the exhaust/plume is in alignment with the launch site point; and that each individual spiral event centre corresponds with the trajectory points marked on the White Sea launch area.



[edit on 1/2/10 by tauristercus]


+50 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


You sir, have put forth one of the best examples of serious and authentic research by an ATS member I have witnessed to date.

Absolutely astonishing!

Thank you!

It will take me days to attempt to absorb this material, but I just wanted to note my appreciation for your efforts.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Not this again


Dont you get it was done by HARRP?


I cant believe your still believing the media side version of it.

Sorry even by your so called thread i still cant see this as a missile test.
why jumping the bandwagon with the media version?

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]


+34 more 
posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Sorry even by your so called thread i still cant see this as a missile test.
why jumping the bandwagon with the media version?


So it took you 14 minutes to go through all that eh?

And you offer no evidence to refute.

Denying ignorance is one thing, doing it with such temerity is a calling ... you should be proud.



[edit on 1 Feb 2010 by schrodingers dog]


+5 more 
posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Not this again


Dont you get it was done by HARRP?


I cant believe your still believing the media side version of it.

Sorry even by your so called thread i still cant see this as a missile test.
why jumping the bandwagon with the media version?

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]


As I stated in my OP, I was originally in the other camp and vehemently denied the "official" missile explanation as all there was to it. In fact, I had virtually latched on to an EISCAT/HAARP type of connection and explanation.

But as additional evidence (sightings/photos) became available, it was very easy to disprove an EISCAT/HAARP connection and instead very satisfactorily show that the missile WAS the originator.

But where I have NOT changed my stance is in my denial of the "official" explanations of a malfunctioning 3rd stage ... my research shows quite clearly that a malfunction could NOT have caused the spiral event.

Sure, the missile created the spiral event ... but NOT accidentally ... it could only have been the result of deliberate actions and most likely due to new technology onboard the missile being tested.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Sorry even by your so called thread i still cant see this as a missile test.
why jumping the bandwagon with the media version?


So it took you 14 minutes to go through all that eh?

Denying ignorance is one thing, doing it with such temerity is a calling ... you should be proud.



Hahahah ... good point ... and one I hesitated to bring up.
It took me longer than that to proof read it before posting



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   


wow, first off.. S&F.

second, this was a extremely well thought out and put together thread. It has really made me think twice about what actually occured that day. It is very plausible that it could be a completely different missle other than a bulava and they decided to say a bulava failed... hmm makes you think.

good job.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
This is amazing! Star n flagg!
I have never seen anything like this here before...
I really need some time to go through all this for real...
Thank you for your great work on this one..
Back to work!

cheers

skekke

[edit on 1-2-2010 by skekke]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Excellent posting. I am stunned and vindicated to find someone of similar beliefs. Great work.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
We have never been informed (and probably never will be) of the precise failure mode of the missile. I don't think there is any reason to believe that the test was not a failure since a failure can be defined as the payload not reaching its target. But the successful launch the following day of the Topol-M displayed a similar effect so it could very well be that the spiral was not a direct result of the failure. It should be pointed out that James Oberg has been skeptical of the spiral being caused by the failure of the Bulava since very early on. At one point I, half in jest, suggested that the spiral was indeed evidence of electronic counter measures.

A very detailed and thorough analysis to show that the Bulava was the source of the spiral.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
This is the second lengthly and superb thread that i have seen this user post.

The last one about prime numbers lead me to print the article and spend some time reading it in the evening hours before bed to absorb it.

S&F for sure! now some simple observations of my own.

A: you have sufficient free time to compilate the research
B: you have sufficient mathematics skills to computate.
C: you are at least versed in basic physics.
D: you have an analytical mind
E: you stick to facts and leave emotion at the door in your reasearch.

So exactly what college do you teach calculus and physics in? lol just a hunch, but i think i would love to study under such a beautiful mind.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Excellent apprisal of the phenomenon.

Anyone do an analysis of the relative position of the sun over the horizon to show how it would illuminate the 'exhaust plume' as well as refract through the plume to cause the greater spiral to appear within any atmospheric cloud / vapor?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Well since it is your post and the other thread was your thread, i retake what i have said



Well done indeed, from what i can tell it took a long while to get it done.
sorry for my ignorance.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Excellent detective work!

Is it possible to link to the GE silhouette images so we could verify the triangulation by ourselves? Not doubting you, just so it would be official and 100% verifiable.

Kinda leaves me wondering why closer regions did not see the event, but mostly Norway? Maybe it has to do with the angle the sun is coming up from behind the horizon?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I have to agree with some of the posts here. This has to be the most Brilliant Post I have seen on any website. Especially on the subject of the Normay Spiral.

So much work has been put into this I woud find it hard for anyone to doubt the OP's Findings, apart from what actually caused the event and no-one will be able to answer that until someone comes forward who had a hand in Causing/Making the Spiral.

I had been thinking about what could have made it and I have a theory.

What if the Russians, or the Americans, are trying to find a way into the another dimension? Maybe Shooting something through a hole that accesses the next Dimension or even going Back or Forward through time??

You have to admit, no matter how you look at it, the Spirals are way to perfect for a Failed Missile turning End over End. Maybe a very Strong Magnetic Field could have caused it.. Maybe, The Russians, working with the Americans, came up with an idea to use Haarp and some Russian technolgy to do something "Mind Blowing".

Who Knows? But, I have to say again that the OP put forth one of the best arguments due to Fantastic Research, that I have ever seen..

Well Done. 100 Stars and a Hundred Flags from me..



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I have nothing but appreciation for you in this post.

A well thought out, reasoned and beautifully presented article which disproved your previous bias to its origins. A remarkably solid example of scientific practise.

It's a shame I can only star and flag this as it's my second favourite thread here now.

Well done sir!

-m0r



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Not this again


Dont you get it was done by HARRP?


I cant believe your still believing the media side version of it.

Sorry even by your so called thread i still cant see this as a missile test.
why jumping the bandwagon with the media version?

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]


As I stated in my OP, I was originally in the other camp and vehemently denied the "official" missile explanation as all there was to it. In fact, I had virtually latched on to an EISCAT/HAARP type of connection and explanation.

But as additional evidence (sightings/photos) became available, it was very easy to disprove an EISCAT/HAARP connection and instead very satisfactorily show that the missile WAS the originator.

But where I have NOT changed my stance is in my denial of the "official" explanations of a malfunctioning 3rd stage ... my research shows quite clearly that a malfunction could NOT have caused the spiral event.

Sure, the missile created the spiral event ... but NOT accidentally ... it could only have been the result of deliberate actions and most likely due to new technology onboard the missile being tested.


I agree with your expert analysis. I believe the dispersion pattern was a test for disseminating a "wall" or "shield" to prevent an incoming missile from penetrating successfully to reach it's target. I submit to you, sir, that this was a Russian anti-missile test. Well done.





new topics
top topics
 
315
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join