Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

page: 28
316
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I have posted before, with links, atmospheric spirals created by Non-malfunctioning rockets have been observed since the early 1960's. It is nothing new and it isn't necessary for a rocket to malfunction to create one.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
I have posted before, with links, atmospheric spirals created by Non-malfunctioning rockets have been observed since the early 1960's. It is nothing new and it isn't necessary for a rocket to malfunction to create one.


I'm assuming that at least one of your examples WILL bear a very close resemblance to the Norway Spiral to show that the Norway Spiral was NOT a one of a kind and unique event ? Please save me the search for your previous posts and post once more just ONE example of an identical spiral creation.

Anyway, I'm assuming that you disagree with my detailed explanation as to why a supposedly "malfunctioning" Russian missile could NOT POSSIBLY have resulted in the creation of that Norway spiral.
And if so, then I'm sure you'll be more than willing to explain where my analysis was in error and furthermore, provide an equally detailed rebuttal showing HOW the Norway spiral was created by something as simple and innocuous as a "fuel leak".



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 
I don't have any issues with your very detailed and well-researched OP. The Bulava may have malfunctioned, but the info that I had posted last year related to Atlas Centaur launches by NASA that created spirals, but had no malfunction reported.
I highly doubt that any spiral has presented that was identical to the Norway Spiral, but I believe that has a lot to do with the location of the witness(es) in relation to the position and attitude of the spiral.
I will search for those links and re-post them as soon as I can.
The 1960's references are eyewitness reports from ship crew members, there were no photos taken.

I was mainly posting above to rebut those who disbelieve you and want to blame UFO's , HAARP or portals to another dimension.
edit on 27-1-2012 by butcherguy because: To add.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 
Here are some early references to atmospheric spirals and concentric rings associated with rocket launches:

The Marine Observer

From the link:


m.v. British Oak. Teneriffe to Monrovia. Captain A. C. Browne. Observers, the Master and Mr. P. M. Edge, Chief Officer. 27th November 1963. A point of light of about 2nd magnitude with an elliptical glow of approx. 3o diameter and concentric circles of light was observed through binoculars at 1925 GMT. It was first seen bearing 230o at 18o altitude and disappeared 4 min. later bearing 190o, altitude 8o. The sky was cloudless and the atmosphere clear. Position of ship: 24o 27'N, 17o 14'W.



m.v. Ripon. Captain Smith. On passage to Freetown. Observers, the Master and Mr. G. W. Brown, Chief Officer. 27th November 1963. At 1926 GMT an illuminated body was observed bearing 270o, altitude 30o. It appeared at first to have a suffused glow around it, but as the object moved parallel with the ship's course, the glow assumed the definite form of a tight spiral of blue-white light. The spiral expanded to a maximum radius of about 5o with about 12 turns visible at one time when bearing 200o, altitude 20o. The size afterwards diminished until the body faded from sight bearing 155o, altitude 12o, at 1931. As the object moved in azimuth, it also appeared to be gyrating about a centre in an anticlockwise direction and to vary in brilliance. At its brightest the object had a brilliance less than Venus and greater than Altair; its track passed between these two bodies. The whole phenomenon gave the impression of looking into a conically formed spring and was indeed a most sensational sight. We can only conjecture that it was an artificial satellite 'gone wrong' or passing through a cloud of meteoric dust. The accompanying sketches show how the phenomenon appeared to the observers. There was a cloudless sky and bright moonlight at the time. Position of vessel: 10o 5'N, 15o 59'W.



m.v. Pennyworth. Captain I. Gault. Middlesbrough to Monrovia. Observers, Mr. J. H. Edwards, 2nd Radio Officer, the Master, Mr. J. Nielsen, Chief Officer, Mr. J. MacKenzie, 3rd Officer, Mr. T. Walker, 1st Radio Officer, and the Chief Enfineer. 27th November 1963. At 1900 GMT for approx. 5 min. a bright object having a magnitude greater than any other star or planet was seen in the sky. It appeared to be stationary in the west at an elevation of 40o, for about 2 min. It then moved off rapidly in a SE'ly direction, disappearing about 2 min. later. The bright light from the object radiated outwards, like the ripples from a pebble thrown into a pond; at first in concentric circles, then in a spiral and finally in concentric half-circles. The general impressions of the phenomena seen are shown in the accompanying sketches. The object was definitely not a meteorite, and the course was too erratic for an earth satellite. Position of ship: 7o 39'N, 14o 13'W.


Note this:


Note 1. What was seen by the ships was undoubtedly an American rocket, Centaur 2, launched from Cape Kennedy at 1900 GMT on 27th November 1963. The times and positions indicated by the three ships agree very closely with calculated values. The odd appearance cannot be explained precisely but it is no doubt associated with the fact that the rocket when seen was still under power or had very recently been so. (Marine Observer, 34:181-183, 1964)


ETA: The rocket launch spoken of above was successful, according to this:


1963 November 27 - . 19:03 GMT - . Launch Site: Cape Canaveral. Launch Complex: Cape Canaveral LC36A. LV Family: Atlas. Launch Vehicle: Atlas Centaur. LV Configuration: Atlas Centaur AC-2 / Centaur D 126D. Atlas Centaur 2 - . Payload: Centaur 2B. Mass: 4,620 kg (10,180 lb). Nation: USA. Agency: NASA Cleveland. Class: Moon. Type: Lunar probe. Spacecraft: Surveyor. USAF Sat Cat: 694 . COSPAR: 1963-047A. Apogee: 1,478 km (918 mi). Perigee: 469 km (291 mi). Inclination: 30.4000 deg. Period: 104.60 min. Summary: Launch vehicle test. Launch vehicle put dummy payload into geosynchronous transfer orbit. First successful Centaur (liquid hydrogen-fueled) flight..


Astronautix

Reading the descriptions provided from the observers, it sounds (to me) like they saw something very much like the Norway Spiral. Too bad they didn't take any photos. My original connection with this was in a book that I read a number of years ago, and I forget the title now. In it, some scientist theorized that the spirals were caused by a phenomenon having to do with an interaction of the rocket exhaust and the ionosphere. I can't remember any details about that theory, I am sorry to say.
edit on 27-1-2012 by butcherguy because: To add.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
i wonder if the norway spiral was made from dark energy.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by moekuba
i wonder if the norway spiral was made from dark energy.
I think it was regular light energy.

I don't think that the Russian rockets use dark energy for propulsion yet.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


i wasnt implying that it was from a russan rocket maybe it was just a random event, cuz if it was a russian rocket that created it id like to see them proove it, its not like the norway spiral caused any destruction so why cant they prove it by launching another one of these supposed rockets.
edit on 29-2-2012 by moekuba because: add



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Amazing how this event has been forgotten and swept under the rug. Strange times. I cannot believe the lies people suck down. Rockets gone awry or natural anomaly that happens-which is it? Anyone else notice "experts" from both sides giving an explanation? What ARE we to believe? Which lie? There cannot be TWO different explanations for ONE event. I still think it was manmade, by a military or lab, and was shown to Obama, demonstrated for him. Until he is no longer POTUS there is a chance he is the One that ushers in the End/Beginning. He is cocky as of late, I fear he will be re-elected. Ron Paul is the only one who can hold back Hell on Earth a little longer. I know. I sound crazy. It is what it is and no one can point, we are all lunatics in a mad world.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by moekuba
reply to post by butcherguy
 


i wasnt implying that it was from a russan rocket maybe it was just a random event, cuz if it was a russian rocket that created it id like to see them proove it, its not like the norway spiral caused any destruction so why cant they prove it by launching another one of these supposed rockets.
edit on 29-2-2012 by moekuba because: add
I was implying that it was a rocket.

See my post just above, it has been documented over the years.




so why cant they prove it by launching another one of these supposed rockets.

Because launching rockets into space is fairly expensive to do, and they don't just do it to prove to some people on a website that rockets do create atmospheric spirals.
edit on 29-2-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


you do give a good explination to the norway spiral but untill it happens again and there is a video of a rocket being launched and creating this we will never know for sure.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
This spiral was one of the most amazing phenomena in the whole 21th century so far...



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Some of those were unidentified as rockets.
There are many fire in the sky UFOs with trails people say are jet trails but may not be
so with a UFO phenomena. If the fire in the sky UFO did a spin for fun what would happen:
a spiral.

edit on 6/8/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
HELLO!

I propose, once again, that it was a Russian SLBM taken out in boost phase by either a NATO rail-gun or high powered Laser/other classified energy weapon.

That's why there was a spiral formed by the expulsion of rocket fuel from an entry and exit punctuation that was symmetrical, if the rocket engine ruptured or suffered structural failure through design or engineering flaws the rocket would have been far more likely to break apart and release all fuel in a cloud causing the visual phenomena of a gaseous cloud or single trail, neither of which were evident from any of the photographic images of the event.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrlondon
HELLO!

I propose, once again, that it was a Russian SLBM taken out in boost phase by either a NATO rail-gun or high powered Laser/other classified energy weapon.

That's why there was a spiral formed by the expulsion of rocket fuel from an entry and exit punctuation that was symmetrical, if the rocket engine ruptured or suffered structural failure through design or engineering flaws the rocket would have been far more likely to break apart and release all fuel in a cloud causing the visual phenomena of a gaseous cloud or single trail, neither of which were evident from any of the photographic images of the event.


Respectfully, I have to disagree with your "shot down" hypothesis.

As I described in my 3rd post (on page 1), the physics of a DAMAGED missile in flight following a particular trajectory as the Russian missile did, is incapable of producing the spiral effect as seen by many observers.
Recall that the best view of the spiral shows clearly the missile crossing the observers view from right to left and as such, a spiral shape that is full on facing the observer is impossible to generate purely from the expulsion or leakage of propellant fuel.

Again, I'll take the opportunity to summarize what I said on page 1 regarding the implausibility of generating such a perfect "full on" spiral as the missile crosses your view point from right to left.



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.



So if such a "full on facing" spiral is impossible to explain if we simply assume that the missile is damaged and leaking fuel, then we have to seriously consider an alternative explanation, namely that the missile was actually performing as designed by the Russian scientists and was demonstrating some highly advanced and sophisticated technology ... whether it be propulsion technology or offensive/defensive technology.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Sorry to revive such and old topic, but I just have throw out a coment.
That clip is the best Ive seen so far to actually represent what it really looked like.
I saw it, I live in Tromsø.

And I do believe it was a rocket, and not some rouge Eiscat experiment.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Was this ever debunked?? I'm so tired of hearing people talk about alien portals, wormholes, etc.. Yet, I don't see anything online really debunking this as simply being a rocket or government testing of some sort. I'd really love to see other examples of rockets producing this effect so I can present that to people who are always arguing with me about it yet still, and continue to make outrageous claims. Could it be an alien portal? Sure, nothing is impossible. Is it most likely something more mundane such as a rocket tumbling? I would think that is a much more likely scenario.





new topics

top topics



 
316
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join