Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 305 times

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:36 AM by tauristercus

The following is my attempt 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.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:40 AM by schrodingers dog

reply to post by tauristercus

I was wondering, and please forgive my lack of knowledge in this regard ... is there a way to plug in all the data you have compiled into a 3d cad simulation?

Cheers.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:48 AM by beebs

Fantastic!

I will admit I rode the wave on this one with you, tauristercus.

I also still think it wasn't like they said, but now it is unmistakably from a rocket, rather than eiscat. But wasn't Tequila sunrise operational anyways? perhaps they needed the rocket's show for the test...

Star and flag.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:48 AM by tauristercus

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Hmmmm .... now thats a very good idea and something I'd like to see done sometime ... could prove quite informative.
But unfortunately I've never used any 3D Cad software and therefore lacking in the necessary expertise

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:54 AM by Phage

reply to post by tauristercus

You're more than half way there. It can be done with Google Earth.

While using the photograph would be tricky it's possible to use the polygon and path features to place the trajectory and something spiral-like in the proper locations.

Exporting the kml file would make it available to everyone with Google Earth.

[edit on 2/1/2010 by Phage]

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:03 AM by tauristercus

Originally posted by above
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.

Peer review welcomed ...

U2U sent.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:11 AM by Nola213

Amazing post. Thanks for takeing the time to explain it slowly, and with well placed pictures, and in an easy to follow layout, so laymen , like myself could understand.

Haveing said that. It takes alot to throw away a theory like the original one you were so passionate about, and look at the facts, and admit you might have been wrong, then prove it.

Excellent work there.

For me, aafter reading this (hate to say post) more like presentation..., I'm gonna have to say this was definitely a Russian missile.

The only question left, and I agree, is one Phage and I believe the OP touched on;

Whether the "spiral" is a malfunction at all, or the testing of some new advanced defensive measure of the Boliva type missile system.

Great post/posts. S+F

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:22 AM by seattletruth

Thanks OP.... You have shown very well that a rocket was indeed involved.

But why is a rocket being used completely mutually exclusive to EM manipulation being used as well?

From early on, many of us have believed that a rocket was used to deliver a payload into the upper atmosphere, which was in turn manipulated by HAARP-type technology.

How does this rule the secondary manipulation out? Maybe there's something I'm missing...

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:27 AM by maximiliian

reply to post by tauristercus

kudos to tauristercus, I appreciate and admire the detail you provided in your research. Having members like you are valuable.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by maximiliian]

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:36 AM by tauristercus

Almost embarrassed to ask ... but is there a simple way for me to provide a link to a Google Earth .kmz file without having to go to all the trouble of joining up to a file hosting site just for that single file ?

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:41 AM by seethelight

Excellent post... until the very end!

This is a perfect summary of the facts:

"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."

I have NO idea why you had to tag a conspiracy theory onto the end of it?

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:54 AM by rhines

reply to post by tauristercus

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 ?

That is moot, why would they want to risk international questioning and possibly diplomatic issues by blowing up a rockcet over Norway ? And that just days before the arrival of US president Obama (Nobel Peace price).

Added: Impressive work, S&F for you. I am not 100% how you backtracked the original launch sites though.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by rhines]

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 03:00 AM by tauristercus

Originally posted by seethelight
Excellent post... until the very end!

This is a perfect summary of the facts:

"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."

I have NO idea why you had to tag a conspiracy theory onto the end of it?

I didn't "tag a conspiracy theory" onto the end of my thread but instead was making a statement that if an accident or mechanical failure explanation did not fit the observed facts, then the other side of the coin is that the observed events were a deliberate and intentional construct. There is NO current evidence that precludes such an alternative explanation.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 03:01 AM by Crito

A successful test of a missile defense system makes sense to me. I find it unlikely Russia would have conducted such a test in that area without informing NATO however. More likely it was a joint venture.

Doesn't change the fact that our governments and the mainstream media routinely lies to us though. The lies are so blatant and frequent, in fact, that I find it hard to believe anything my government says.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 03:11 AM by tauristercus

Originally posted by rhines
reply to post by tauristercus

I am not 100% how you backtracked the original launch sites though.

As I mentioned in my thread, I "guestimated" the probable original launch site area. Essentially because the 4 spiral points (C thru F) all mapped perfectly onto a great circle trajectory path, I assumed it would be logical that the sub would have positioned itself in the White Sea in such a manner that there would be minimal need for corrective thrust maneuvers to align the missile along the correct great circle trajectory ... if for no other reason than to minimize fuel wastage/consumption.

So basically, the sub puts out to sea ... navigates to the starting location of the pre-calculated great circle/trajectory ... then launches the missile which is now flying along the great circle trajectory path with minimal flight corrections needed.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 03:11 AM by chunder

Firstly great research and detail in the OP - brilliant actually.

Please forgive me in advance for what are probably stupid questions and a misguided observation.

What "emissions" caused the blue corkscrew track and the subsequent whitish spiral ?

Were they deliberate or as a result of a failure ?

I can accept this was a rocket test and the conclusion that it wasn't necessarily a failure but what caused the visible phenomena - is the blue trail supposed to be exhaust and the white spiral fuel ?

Have other missiles of the same type left the same colour trail or is this some new propulsion system that reacted with the atmosphere in some EM fashion to provide an aurora type effect ?

If it was indeed an anti-missile test as suggested by another poster what are we seeing in the spiral as it doesn't look as if it is a "physical" shield ?

The observation is that the pictures from Skjervoy and Tromso, when compared with the view from space, seem to show that the "spiral event" was much closer to Skjervoy than the analysis indicates.

This could be a function of perspective, picture cropping or camera zoom but to my untrained eye isn't the difference in "size" of the event in the pictures from the two places too pronounced if it took place at the indicated lcoation ?

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 04:10 AM by inthemistandfog

this quote:

All of these locations fall EXACTLY on a "great circle" path ... a "great circle" is the shortest location between 2 points on a sphere.

Wikipedia says

"A great circle of a sphere is a circle that runs along the surface of that sphere so as to cut it into two equal halves, as distinct from a small circle."

What is the implication with "shortest location between 2 points" ? Is this something that is ruling out observations from closer regions in the approx. path, such as Enontekiö, Muonio, Kittilä and Sodankylä in Finland ?

At least there were many people awake and out at this our in northern Finland and Sweden. People there do use the internet and do report these things, none was reported. Why would that be ?

I tried to google a bit, if I could find some weather reports to see, if northern Finland would have been covered by clouds or something, but I couldn't.

Anyway thanks for the great analysis

[edit on 1-2-2010 by inthemistandfog]

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 04:34 AM by Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by tauristercus

Thank you for all your intelligent, hard work on this thread.

I have been a supporter of the "missile theory" from day 1.

Of course, I have not applied 1,000th of the logic & reasoning that you have.

I look forward to reading your information in detail.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 04:35 AM by seethelight

reply to post by tauristercus

Actually, you did:

"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 .... "

That is a conspiracy theory ^^^^^^^

The Russian military (and for that natter, the world press, including the Norwegian government and press) is conspiring to lie about what they observed/intentionally going along with Russia's lies.

I read the papers and see numerous occasions, almost daily, of governments disagreeing with our governments.

Take Georgia.. the US press went wild in disagreeing with Russia, publicly.

Why not do that this time?

I guess they must've conspired, secretly, to cover-up Russias new secret technology?

Is that what you think?

Based on what?

Why would you go to such extreme lengths to back up your other assertions, then at the very end add a bit of unsubstantiated rumour-mongering, and then say, yes, I believe these rumours?

Based on what?

The fact that Russia shouldn't suck so badly at making missiles work?

The fact that you don't currently think it was an accidental failure?

Well, a month ago you thought it wasn't a missile, right?

What will you definitively prove in another month?

You're fact based analysis of the data was good, up to a point, but engaging in speculation undermines the credibility of your actual analysis.

Just my opinion.

But it is my opinion.

reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 04:38 AM by tauristercus

Originally posted by chunder

Firstly great research and detail in the OP - brilliant actually.

Please forgive me in advance for what are probably stupid questions and a misguided observation.

Not stupid questions at all ... in fact I (and many others) have asked those same questions.
Unfortunately, the answers aren't very satisfying

What "emissions" caused the blue corkscrew track and the subsequent whitish spiral ?

Uknown ... although most early speculation was that these 2 phenomena were somehow the result of 2 fuel leaks/discharges located on opposite sides of the missile.
My analysis seems to rule out this explanation.

Were they deliberate or as a result of a failure ?

Again, early speculation was that they were unintentional and the result of some kind of failure within the 3rd stage.
My analysis seems to rule out any obvious form of failure and indicates instead that perhaps the observed effects may have been of a deliberate nature.

I can accept this was a rocket test and the conclusion that it wasn't necessarily a failure but what caused the visible phenomena - is the blue trail supposed to be exhaust and the white spiral fuel ?

Insufficient information but there is a definite and immediate state of change occuring from the exhaust plume colour and structure to the blue spiral colour and structure.

Have other missiles of the same type left the same colour trail or is this some new propulsion system that reacted with the atmosphere in some EM fashion to provide an aurora type effect ?

I'm not aware of any previous missile test that came even close to producing these observed effects.
My personal guess based on my conclusions is that we may have seen the testing of a new type of propulsion and/or weapon system.

If it was indeed an anti-missile test as suggested by another poster what are we seeing in the spiral as it doesn't look as if it is a "physical" shield ?

Again, very difficult to speculate without knowing if some kind of new technology was involved.

The observation is that the pictures from Skjervoy and Tromso, when compared with the view from space, seem to show that the "spiral event" was much closer to Skjervoy than the analysis indicates.

This could be a function of perspective, picture cropping or camera zoom but to my untrained eye isn't the difference in "size" of the event in the pictures from the two places too pronounced if it took place at the indicated lcoation ?

Sorry about the confusion ... the space view of the spiral event was not meant to be very accurate but the intention was simply to give some kind of "feel" for what the event may have looked like from above the atmosphere.
My research and conclusions indicated that a substantial part of the final spiral event took place outside of the atmosphere ... which prompted me to quickly throw that last image together.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^