It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

page: 3
317
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:49 AM
this is a truly amazing thread and one of the best I have seen....instead of star and flag there should be a donate button to donate something for your time and effort into truly amazing piece of work....

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:49 AM

Originally posted 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 ?

From Wiki: en.wikipedia.org...
"The great-circle distance or orthodromic distance is the shortest distance between any two points on the surface of a sphere measured along a path on the surface of the sphere."

Aircraft flying between 2 distant points (especially international) will fly along a calculated great circle route ... primarily because thats the shortest distance over a sphere between those 2 points and secondarily, to minimize fuel usage.
This same principal would also apply to ballistic missiles going from point A to point B ... the shortest distance and minimum fuel requirements would necessitate following a segment of a great circle route.

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 ?

One would tend to think that if weather was not a mitigating factor, that many more people would have been witness to the event ... far more than actually were ... especially considering that my analysis indicates a substantial part of the spiral event occured at an altitude of 100's of kilometres which should have been visible over a huge area.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:00 AM

keep up the great work, if everyone on ATS posted like this we would probably know alot more.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:06 AM
Amazing post! Impressively detailed analysis.
You obviously put a lot of work into this, and it shows. Thank you!

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:14 AM

Originally posted by seethelight

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 ^^^^^^^

Respectfully, I have to once again disagree that I ended my thread with a "conspiracy theory".

A general purpose definition of a "conspiracy theory" is "

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act

I'm quite certain that at no time did I mention any other nations involvement beyond that of Russia's ... so by definition ... NO conspiracy and by extension ... NO conspiracy theory.

I ended my analysis with a speculation that perhaps to mask or divert attention away from the testing of some possible new technology, that the Russian military/government/whatever may have resorted to downplaying or misreporting the actual degree of success they may have been achieving. Would this behaviour be unique and a 1st timer in the annals of military hardware development ? I think not !
I also conjectured that I personally thought it exceedingly strange and unusual that Russia, with 50 odd years in very successful missile and launch vehicle technology but now all of a sudden can't seem to get x amount of missiles to successfully launch if their lives depended on it ... especially considering that these NEW missiles are based to a large extent on their tried and tested Topol M predecessor which constitutes the backbone of the Russian missile fleet ?

So are we to assume that the Russians have somehow progressed backwards in launch technology and forgotten much of what they had learned during the Cold War ... or perhaps under reporting their real successes ?

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:27 AM

First of all, fantastic work. That is a very thorough analysis of what we saw.

However, and I'm sure you expected this, that I have a couple of slight problems with your reasoning.

You assume that the missile was tumbling, which isn't exactly the only failure mode of a rocket outside of the atmosphere. In fact, from the symmetry of the spirals, I'd say it's pretty unlikely that it was tumbling.

Also, even though the Bulava is based on the Topol-M, it is a far different beast. It is designed to have extensive counter-measures and far greater maneuvering ability. That is a far cry from the Topol-M. It is expected that Russia, especially in times of financial squeeze, is incapable of perfectly launching most of their test missiles, especially when the missile in question is far advanced compared to that which came before it.

As Phage said, the visual phenomena very well might not be caused by an actual failure, but by the countermeasures (which includes decoys) being deployed.

Either way, there is no evidence to point to HAARP or EISCAT or Santa Claus, just yet anyway.

So, in summary - your evidence is fantastic, but based on a couple of rather strange assumptions, namely that the missile was tumbling, and that Russia should be able to launch a missile without it failing.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:28 AM
I personally can admire these kinds of posts much more than just throwing out uninformed opinions. That's the way I like it

Well done and keep going!

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:55 AM

Originally posted by davesidious

First of all, fantastic work. That is a very thorough analysis of what we saw.

Thanks for the
as I certainly appreciate it !

You assume that the missile was tumbling, which isn't exactly the only failure mode of a rocket outside of the atmosphere. In fact, from the symmetry of the spirals, I'd say it's pretty unlikely that it was tumbling.

Sorry if I gave the assumption that I BELIEVED the missile to really be tumbling as that wasn't the intention.
I was actually trying to make a comparison between an in control missile, i.e. nose pointed in direction of flight and thrust applied at the rear ... and a missile that wasn't flying in a controlled manner ... therefore tumbling either to a small or greater degree.
As far as I can think, flying straight and in control or tumbling and out of control are basically it as far as missile flight goes.

I then used these these 2 flight modes to show that both of them were totally inadequate to explain the mechanism of near perfect spiral formation.

In the controlled flight scenario, any spiral generated could ONLY be seen edge on by an observer at Skjervoy.
In the tumbling out of control scenario, I'm sure I don't need to elaborate on how the 3 vectors of forward motion, tumbling motion and rotational motion along the missiles axis couldn't possibly conspire to generate a stable and near perfect spiral.

Also, even though the Bulava is based on the Topol-M, it is a far different beast. It is designed to have extensive counter-measures and far greater maneuvering ability. That is a far cry from the Topol-M. It is expected that Russia, especially in times of financial squeeze, is incapable of perfectly launching most of their test missiles, especially when the missile in question is far advanced compared to that which came before it.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Bulava missile series leans heavily on the preceeding Topol-M missile class technology... including it's use of a 3 stage solid propellant fuel technology ... this technology has been around for many decades and the Russians certainly know how to build missiles with it.
I agree with you that the Bulava series boasts some impressive stats regarding maneuverability, counter measures, emp hardening, etc ... but the majority of test failures in the Bulava series so far have been reported as staging failures which as I have mentioned before, seems to be extremely unusual for solid propellent based technology ... imagine the additional problems they'd have if they instead tried to convert the Bulavas to the more complex liquid fueled propellants.

Anyway, this is just MY personal opinion that perhaps the Russians have been under reporting their actual success rate with the Bulavas ... after all, the less your opponent knows about your military hardware and its capabilities ... the better !

Again ... MY PERSONAL OPINION ONLY !!!!

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:06 AM
For those who haven't read the thread "Norway spiral in China today*," keep in mind that this information (which is similar in conclusion to the pinpointing done at spellconsulting.com) doesn't rule out the possibility that it's related to those who create designs such as this:

Video showing detail of the spiral.

(*I screwed up while writing that post - looking back at my notes of that dream it was on the 9th, not the 10th.)

[edit on 1-2-2010 by eupeptic]

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:28 AM

tauristercus my friend i thought you were genius in your original explanation and now i KNOW you are ! Excellent post and someone not scared to swallow his pride and re-analyze ! Absolutely brilliant !

Obviously starred and flagged !

[edit on 062828p://02America/Chicago01 by ProRipp]

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:31 AM
Bravo! Now that's a post!

Thank you for explaining it in great yet easily understandable detail, tauristercus. That's a lot of effort.

S&F of course.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:13 AM
Do you have any evidence to support these wild allegations?

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:15 AM
A well deserved S&F to you.
every now and then some one will make a lenghty first post of their thread, and this one is different because usually they are just tiresome uninformed gibberish, however this one had me hooked, usually i will either lose interest after the first 3 paragraphs or bookmark the page untill i can be arsed to read it, but not with this one, from reading the first word i sat, read and thought about all your points and research and i enjoyed it too.
Your a reminder of how ATS should be.
just to finish off, i also thought it looked more like something coming out of the spiral rather than just the spiral dissipating.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:17 AM
Just kidding!That was one of if not the most well researched well presented threads I have ever seen.Thank you.I by the way was one who did not believe it was a missile but after perusing Your thread it looks as though I was mistaken.I am going back to look at it more closely.Again thank you.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:24 AM
Really awesome research! I would like to see the picture you saw, which lead you to describe the black hole that formed, as a ball trying to squeeze into a smaller tube.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:31 AM

Very well put together thread, mad props for the time you put in to making this.

I am still on the fence on this subject, and I'm not even going to bother trying to debunk anyone or story at this point because the official story I believe is either some sort of half truth or something completely different, but I'm not expert when it comes to missiles so I cannot say yes or no about the 'Norway spiral' being a missile malfunction or not.

S&F.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by highlyoriginal]

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:38 AM
Great Post! I have said all along that it was a failed ICBM. I have watched a similar occurance with one of our own failed ICBM tests in the 80's.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:38 AM

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]

Did you not READ the OPs entire post first??

So called thread?! Really?!?! This is one of the BEST threads I have ever seen on ATS. The OP obviously spent a lot of time on it and researched it thoroughly. I would like to see you make a thread on this if you think this one isnt that great...

OP this is probably one of the best researched threads I have ever seen on ATS. I would never have thought of any of the things you posted in your thread. I will be posting links to your thread on various sites I am on if you dont mind.. I will have to re-read most of it to understand it fully. Thanks for a wonderfully researched thread! The spiral has always interested me

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:04 AM
Brilliant thread. Altough the EISCAT theory was more exiting, I think you nailed the Norway Spiral, and in a fantastic way.

The world needs more people like you.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:05 AM
I too felt that the black circle enlarging within the spiral looked more to be some sort of substance or energy rather than just the sky showing through the opening.
I was so dissapointed to find out it was just a failed missle launch but this whole new spin of 'secret experiment' makes it exciting all over again. Thanks.

new topics

top topics

317