Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

Originally posted by Llyynn
I have read most of what is posted here and I would like to know what you guys think of this. I'm no scientist, but this looks like the most convincing argument I've seen and I do not think this guy is a scientist either, but can anyone here disprove what is in these videos?



www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

the-rabbits-hole.com...

Those vid clips above aren't convincing in the slightest ... except for the references to actual photos and footage taken of the Norway Spiral event.
Any attempt to link normal solar activity (SOHO) or attempts to associate pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo such as planet x, niburu, etc is nothing more than clutching at the weakest of straws and trying to 'force fit' totally unrelated issues.

I don't know how many more times that I and davesidious have to continue trying to bring some measure of rationality and explanation to this subject ... sometimes it feels to us as if we're bashing our heads against a wall.
Especially when it's been proven conclusively that the entire event originated from the launching of a Russian Bulava missile that very morning ... the available evidence and analysis is rock solid.

So I wish that people would stop and desist from these hair-brained ideas of trying to drag in all sorts of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo such as planet x, niburu, solar flares, black holes, nano-sized gamma ray bursts and all those other crackpot ideas.

Sure, and in my opinion only, the Russians did use the Bulava to launch into orbit some radically new and exotic technology for testing purposes ... but until some solid evidence surfaces to give us information on how this new technology operates, then I refuse to fall back on ridiculous explanations such as 'they created a black hole' or other similar and non-sensical explanations ... especially when such can be so easily refuted by anyone with even the slightest smattering of 'real world' physics.

I believe I asked if anyone could disprove the information on these videos. You have not done that. Just saying it's a crackpot idea does not qualify as proof. I suppose you never heard of such scientific mumbo jumbo as solar flares, black holes and nano-sized gamma ray bursts, since according to you it is another crackpot idea.

Please explain:

1. Why Nasa has 40 hours of missing tape before the spiral occurred?
2. Why Nasa spliced certain frames to exclude them at this
particular time and also changed the date stamp?
3. Why do you disregard a perfectly logical conclusion on the basis that
you haven't found enough
evidence for your theory YET?
4. Where is your rock solid proof of where this Missile originated from and
that it was a Russian Bulava
missile?
5. Why were the ancient people drawing spirals and seeming to tell a tale
that when you see the sprial in the sky, run?

In my opinion, trying to fit your theory into a ridiculous explanation that you just can't find seems pretty carckpot to me.

Originally posted by Llyynn
I believe I asked if anyone could disprove the information on these videos. You have not done that. Just saying it's a crackpot idea does not qualify as proof. I suppose you never heard of such scientific mumbo jumbo as solar flares, black holes and nano-sized gamma ray bursts, since according to you it is another crackpot idea.

Siggghhhhhhh ... ok ....

Please reread my previous post and you'll notice that I deliberately separated solar flares from the remaining pseudo-science.
Even though one of SOHO's activities is to highlight solar activities such as solar flares, there has however been NO linking or supporting evidence to show even the remotest of connections between any solar activity before or during the Norway event. I'm serious ... NOTHING WHATSOEVER ... but I'm more than happy to take a look at any supporting evidence that you know of that definitively links solar activity to the Norway event.

Even though solar flares and black holes ARE based in science, the same unfortunately cannot be said for 'nano-sized gamma ray bursts'. In fact, could you please supply an authoritative description and explanation of what exactly is meant by the 'nano-sized' part of that description.
It seems to me that Christian Mystic threw together a hodge-podge of what sounded like scientific terminology to support his/her hypothesis. Unfortunately it all falls apart when placed under scrutiny.
A one point, he/she seems to be referring to a fusion like process, then a moment later is referring to fission ... he/she seems to be confused as to how their hypothesis is being powered.
Then there's a reference to the two poles of the nucleus. I have no idea what to make of this and I'm sure that he/she couldn't give a rational and scientific explanation ... why ? because a nucleus does not possess 'poles'.
Then we have the nano-size reference regarding gamma rays. It appears that he/she has an unclear understanding of what the term 'nano' actually means. It certainly can't be applied to electromagnetic radiation.
Then we have the reference to 'gathering' or 'focusing' of the generated gamma rays. How is this focusing accomplished in low earth orbit ? Any generated gamma rays due to nuclear fusion will be initially travelling in random directions away from the fusion event.
Then we have the claim that a black hole was generated just above the Earths atmosphere. My research, analysis and conclusion (based on ACTUAL DATA obtained on the day) shows that the 'black hole' event had a diameter towards the end of 100's of kilometers. If this was a real and genuine black hole of that diameter, then the gravitational tidal forces generated would be significant and would have serious tidal stress effects on the Earth directly beneath it. Also, being just above the atmosphere, the black holes gravitational field would draw in enormous quantities of atmosphere ... and as the atmosphere was pulled past the event horizon of the black hole, enormous quantities of extremely hard gamma, x-ray and uv radiation would be generated that would irradiate the Earth below.
And finally, with a black hole of 100's of kilometers diameter ... how would it be 'shut down' ?

Oh, and by the way, a black hole forms due to the compression of stellar size objects that once the outward pressure generated by fusion stops, gravitational collapse takes over crushing the original stellar mass below an event horizon ... and therefore resulting in a 'black hole' ... care to tell me where this 'sun sized' mass came from to create the Norway 'black hole' ?

Please explain:

1. Why Nasa has 40 hours of missing tape before the spiral occurred?
2. Why Nasa spliced certain frames to exclude them at this
particular time and also changed the date stamp?

Who knows ... but if you can't supply solid linking and corroborating evidence tying it into the Norway event, then these questions have no validity.

3. Why do you disregard a perfectly logical conclusion on the basis that
you haven't found enough
evidence for your theory YET?

Refer to my response at the beginning of this post.

4. Where is your rock solid proof of where this Missile originated from and
that it was a Russian Bulava
missile?

We have the Russians giving advance warning of missile test during the period of the event.
We have an unambiguous, clear and easily discernible rocket exhaust plume directly connected to the beginning stages of the event.
We have, based upon photographic and video evidence taken of the event, conclusively determined the initial launch point of the missile ... we have a firmly determined event trajectory that fits perfectly onto a great circle path ... we have the same trajectory path conclusively aimed at, and intersecting, the Kamchatka Peninsula missile range that the Russians aim most of their missile tests at.

All the above unequivocably confirm that a missile was launched within the White Sea, then executed a perfect tractory (note: not a similar or near trajectory - but a PERFECT trajectory) which was aimed perfectly at the Kamchatka missile range.

5. Why were the ancient people drawing spirals and seeming to tell a tale
that when you see the sprial in the sky, run?

Good example of mumbo-jumbo ... thank you !

Hold on ... just occured to me ... you're now telling me that ancient people were capable of fusion and creating black holes in space ??? GIVE ME A BREAK !!!!!


As I mentioned in my previous post, all this talk of nano-sized gamma ray bursts, nuclear 'poles' and black holes is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific hypothesis based on nothing more substantial than techno-babble.

reply to post by tauristercus


This is why I love this site. Someone takes an incredible amount of time to try and find the facts. Not postulation, but by using a generally accepted scientific method, and by mathematics, you seem to have stumbled across an acceptable explanation. Good Job, I'll be awaiting your next post

Let me see if I have this correctly, your response to missing and doctored images from Nasa is...who knows

Your response to ancient drawings is that they would have to have knowledge of how to create black holes in space and be capable of fusion....why would they need to know any of this if the spiral was a natural ocurrence?

Your making a lot of sense, you have clarified nothing.

Originally posted by Llyynn
Let me see if I have this correctly, your response to missing and doctored images from Nasa is...who knows

I repeat ... 'who knows'.
Until YOU front up with any kind of solid supporting evidence linking NASA and allegedly 'doctored images' to the Norway events of 9 December 2009, then you have nothing.

Your response to ancient drawings is that they would have to have knowledge of how to create black holes in space and be capable of fusion....why would they need to know any of this if the spiral was a natural ocurrence?

I was referring to the hypothesis that Christian Mystic was putting forth regarding nano gamma rays and black holes. In other words, he/she was stating it was an 'artificially created spiral' event. If it was artificial, then how could ancient people have witnessed something identical and recorded it thru rock carvings ?
You can't have it both ways ... are you saying it was artificial or natural ?

reply to post by tauristercus


I like Lynn's take on this. If that is the case. Isn't it possible that the spiral could be seen further eastwards in the Sibiria earlier as the Sun was "further East" (where noone lives to witness it, except military personell based at various places all through Sibiria), making the Russians go haywire, sending up a rocket with equipment to figure out what it was, and when they had completed the tests, they destroyed the rocket to make a perfect cover story? I stand by most of my theories, allthough my scientific understanding and language doesn't fit your excellencies' taste.

[edit on 16/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

Originally posted by tauristercus
Even though solar flares and black holes ARE based in science, the same unfortunately cannot be said for 'nano-sized gamma ray bursts'.

The gamma rays emmitted from a collapsing star into a supersova, travels from each of the two poles of the collapsing sun and follows a very narrow trajectory. In the event, let's say the Russians have come up with a way to produce a miniature GRB micro supernova, the same trajectory would be even smaller, down to or below a radius in the nanometer world -- of the burst. Now what is so crazy about that? Look up Gammarayburst on the net or in your local library or in some book on physics, and then come back and tell me what is so ludacris with that.

[edit on 16/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by tauristercus
Even though solar flares and black holes ARE based in science, the same unfortunately cannot be said for 'nano-sized gamma ray bursts'.

The gamma rays emmitted from a collapsing star into a supersova, travels from each of the two poles of the collapsing sun and follows a very narrow trajectory. In the event, let's say the Russians have come up with a way to produce a miniature GRB micro supernova, the same trajectory would be even smaller, down to or below a radius in the nanometer world -- of the burst. Now what is so crazy about that? Look up Gammarayburst on the net or in your local library or in some book on physics, and then come back and tell me what is so ludacris with that.

[edit on 16/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

I'm sorry but I just don't get it.

Even if the Russians have technology to generate GRB's, these GRB's would typically only last for seconds as is implied by the use of the term Burst. And yet the spiral event lasted orders of magnitude longer.
Also, gamma ray photons travel in straight lines and yet we clearly see the spiral event as following a curved path thru space throughout the entire event duration. This curved path is identical to that of the Bulava trajectory. So if the spiral was created by a GRB at the beginning of the spiral event, then how do you explain that the spiral can be seen to be growing as it follows the missiles trajectory ? What I'm saying is ... if the GRB created an initial spiral, then how was that spiral moved 100's of kilometers along the missiles trajectory ?

Even more so, gamma rays being electromagnetic in nature, I fail to see how a gamma ray burst would be capable of materializing vast amounts of matter in space that would form the spiral arms. And even you would have to admit that whatever material the arms were made from, that it was definitely a form of matter.
Then also, how would a gamma ray burst cause such rapid rotation in the matter as can be readily seen in vids of the event ?
Finally, how would turning off the GRB beam cause the spiral arm material to disappear ?

I'm sorry but while an interesting hypothesis, the 'real world' physics is simply saying 'no way'.

Originally posted by tauristercus
I'm sorry but I just don't get it.

Even if the Russians have technology to generate GRB's, these GRB's would typically only last for seconds as is implied by the use of the term Burst.

A gamma ray burst can last all from nano seconds to several hours. And they rip holes in space-time. Time to do some homework.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by tauristercus
I'm sorry but I just don't get it.

Even if the Russians have technology to generate GRB's, these GRB's would typically only last for seconds as is implied by the use of the term Burst.

A gamma ray burst can last all from nano seconds to several hours. And they rip holes in space-time. Time to do some homework.

When you've completed doing your homework/research, by all means post back and explain all the anomalies in your hypothesis (see my comments in previous post).
It's one thing to throw around terms like GRB's, nano-size, black holes, poles, etc .... but it's all completely meaningless until you can link it to what was actually observed on that morning and correlate it with the available evidence.
Until then, at worst it's techno-babble and at best, pseudo-scientific.


Example of techno-babble:

Captain Pickard: The Klingons have launched a spread of photon torpedoes at us !
Geordie: Don't worry Captain ... I'll simply modulate the forward deflector shield harmonics with an inverse tachyon pulse !


[edit on 16/3/10 by tauristercus]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


Sigghhhh ... ok, lets see if we can simplify things, shall we ?

Lets go to the end of the observed event when the 'black void' was starting to form.

1st question:
According to you, this was a classic yet artificially created black hole ... is this correct ?

Note that by black hole, we're referring to the collapse/compression under gravity of the minimum amount of matter, to an infinitely small/dense point which is surrounded by an event horizon. For the sake of this discussion and to simplify things, we'll assume that it's a non-rotating black hole ... in other words, a Schwarzschild black hole that has no associated charge or angular momentum.

Over to you for your answer ...

reply to post by tauristercus


Any inconsistencies you find in my posts may be due to me being Norwegian and not an educated physicist. English isn't my native tongue, and I don't express myself very well when explaining fysics. I'm sure that if we were to discuss lets say Norwegian syntax and pronounciation, you would have many of the same problems as me expressing your views to me. I have tried to explain to you what a gamma ray burst is, which I haven't been able to do. I am not here to convince, I am here to discuss and philosophy. The phenomenon which happened looks similar to what a small rift in space-time may look like, though linear space dimentions is a product of time lapsed since Big Bang, so all that exists in our perception of space, is time propelled by the energy outlet of Big Bang. These are quantum processes which can both be proven to exist, and not. Man perceives space-time with an update frequency of about 100Hz. When we see something it leaves an impression in our mind which lasts only as long as until next frame is projected. Had these impressions not been wiped out as time went by, we would essencially seen time as a linear dimention and perceived local universe in five or more dimentions, only after a while we would "see the light", everything would become white light and it would probably be hell. We would "see the Light" people has explained as God for millennia, just as you would end up with a completely white picture if you let the shutter on a camera using let's say 100 ASA film for a longer period of time, you would see movement in a linear fasion. Or like when we see an object one meter in length moving incredibly fast, we would perceive it as beeing longer than a meter.

Just as you see a rocked malfunctioning, and I see a potentional deathray.

[edit on 16/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

Sigghhhh ... ok, lets see if we can simplify things, shall we ?

Lets go to the end of the observed event when the 'black void' was starting to form.

1st question:
According to you, this was a classic yet artificially created black hole ... is this correct ?

No. The black hole would be in the center of that "black void". The growing black circle (or globe) would simply be air sucked into the rift in the center. Just like if you poored out flour on the floor and put the muzzle of a vacume cleaner in the center of it.

Note that by black hole, we're referring to the collapse/compression under gravity of the minimum amount of matter, to an infinitely small/dense point which is surrounded by an event horizon. For the sake of this discussion and to simplify things, we'll assume that it's a non-rotating black hole ... in other words, a Schwarzschild black hole that has no associated charge or angular momentum.

I see black holes as just that, holes, only we get tricked by our rational minds to believe the end of the universe is faaaar away. Infact, or atleast the way I see it, the end of the universe is everywhere. Not a very dense thing, but a rift in space-time. I believe we live in a world of infinitely many parallell universes, almost like there are close to infinitely many particles in space, or like bubbles in the bathtub.

Tauristercus,

I think you have confused what I have said with what Neo Christian Mystic has said.

I'll repeat that I am not a scientist, but I am a thinking, reasonable, logical person. What I was really hoping for was that you could reasonably and logically disprove the presentation that Lucas put together. (The Rabbit Hole Website)

With all of the discussion going on here, what makes the most sense and comes to the most logical conclusions is Lucas's presentation, and it's not a pretty picture. If you had watched the presentation and looked at or researched the facts he put together instead of dismissing it as having no merit because you haven't proven your theory yet?

I am sure that the Norway spiral could have been artificially created by a missile or a hologram or the blue beam project, or many other things. I also think that it could have been a natural event just as Neo Christian Mystic has described. I believe that I saw a program the other day that mentioned that when you get into nano technology things react differently then would have been expected, so what Neo Christian is saying could absolutely be the case.

Beam me up Scotty.

reply to post by Phage

I don't recall saying the apparent size of the spiral was a result of overexposure. I did say I thought the size is exaggerated in the photographs because of distorted perspective by use of a telephoto lens.

You are correct, that's what you said.

I was mistaken, my apologies.

Atmospheric drag doesn't explain the way the spiral dissipated, though, imo.

reply to post by Gromle


hi gromle may i ask you some question's did you hear any sound

if you seen the Norway Spiral up front == eye witness with all this debate of missile, eiscat causing the effect

it seem's to me your the only one on these threads of the Norway Spiral that was actually was there and and saw it did you see it from the beginning and how long was the duration of it i > ? I am really surprised that no one has actually hammered you about what has happened and you one of the people from that location that saw it

another question was it like the china spiral !

edited for spelling and grammar sort a

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Wolfenz]

wasn't it an e bomb test?

This is the first case in a long long tiem that is really weird to me-ie so many witnesses it's not someone making it all up.. my one question is this:

It all the pictures i have seen the spiral is always facing the observer. How is this possible?

Why aren't there differnaces in how the spiral appears, instead of the perfect shape that is shown in all the pictures??

It's almost as if it's a flat 2D sprite in a 3D environment so that it is always facing the observer......

reply to post by jumpingbeanz


Ya,

bomb test