Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

page: 4
314
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
When I saw this was another thread on the Norway Spiral, I thought "oh no....here we go again!". But, as so many of you have pointed out, it's been one of the best researched and put together threads I've read on ATS!

Good job OP! It was definitively worth the time to read.




posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Thanks for this thread OP, a very interesting read.
Your research certanly makes it all clearer, and makes one wonder about the implications of this.

How fast can the rocket go, what kind of fuel is used, and is this an indication of a new era in human space exploration?

One can dream. Keep fighting!



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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.


Interesting speculation, could the ejected material be some kind of anti-laser defence? Something to diffuse the light? confuse targeting?

And to the OP


Huge props to you Sir, to review the data and revise your worldview is almost unheard of here.

You have restored some of my faith and that is worth more stars and flags then I can give.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Helmkat]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Excellent overview with the tools and information available to you....
Dont agree with your rocket stage theory for the reasons others have pointed out but that doesnt ditract from the overall quality of the post.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
No. It wasn't a missile



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
What an effort. I'm amazed by the effort you put in to this failed missle
anomaly. Where by most, once the have drawn a conclusion about the event, would simply move on, you have gone over the top.
Fantastic work needs only to be commended. This is fantastic work.


FnS




No. It wasn't a missile


I didn't see one thing about it that looked like a missile.
I really don't think it was either.



[edit on 1-2-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Charts, graphs, statistics, numbers, and...everything else. I'm sorry, but, this gets us no closer to anything than where we were before. All this means is that you spent a gratuitous amount of time piecing together a puzzle that is well beyond the capacity of you, or anyone else on ATS (WE WILL NEVER REALLY KNOW WHAT IT WAS WHETHER WE CONSIDER THE MAINSTREAM EXPLANATION, OR CONSPIRACY). And yes, I realize that you can make many, many more friends embracing the "official explanation," (IF YOU CAN'T BEAT THEM, JOIN THEM) but, as it were...according to many friends of mine with REAL ENGINEERING BACKGROUNDS, the failed missile test theory makes about as much sense as a donkey impregnating a chimpanzee on Independence day. If you have such a passion for this, maybe you should talk to some QUALIFIED ENGINEERS, PEOPLE WITH REAL MATHEMATICAL BACKGROUNDS as opposed to playing Nancy Drew with speculative charts and graphs that show NOTHING. It seems you've done everything thing else except talked with people who have qualifications that could make short work of this.

As it is, I have no opinion on what started this spiral, and in the end...I don't care. Whether it was a failed missile or a paranormal monster that is forming on the equivalent scale of Godzilla, ITS OVER. Thanks for all of your work, but, this is a dead horse that has been beaten to the point of it becoming a husk.


[edit on 1-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


I understand what you were saying, and I'm saying there are more states for a missile than either "controlled flying" and "tumbling". It is very possible for a missile to simply keep its trajectory while leaking (either accidentally or on purpose) from one side. Its momentum, outside of the atmosphere, will keep it flying straight, and it won't tumble. It will, however, wobble slightly, and if it is still powered from the rear, its stabilisation mechanisms (thrust vectoring) will make it wobble, but keep it on course.

Missiles have ways to steer. Especially the Bulava, which Russia has designed as the most maneuverable ICBM ever. That means it's perfectly capable of making many accurate adjustments to its trajectory, even if it is failing or leaking.

I do agree that if the missile was tumbling (which is usually an effect of a body in motion, without power, experiencing air resistance, as the profile of the body against the oncoming air alternates between more and less aerodynamic shapes), then there would be no spiral. But I've yet to see any reason to think a missile, with a massive rocket on its butt, would ever tumble. We can see the blue exhaust, showing the rocket was definitely powered throughout the creation of the spiral. That wasn't tumbling, so it doesn't make sense to think that it was tumbling. If a rocket started to tumble, and still be under power, it would start to spin around the horizontal axis, creating a vertical along its direction of travel.

The modifications the Russians have made to the Topol-M in creating the Bulava are massive. New materials, new equipment, new fuel buses for menuevering. To assume due to it being based on the Topol-M that it is essentially a Topol-M is naive, as again, there is no evidence to suggest that an ICBM with such drastic changes will bear anything other than a passing resemblance to the previous incarnation.

I simply can not see, and I've not read of any scientist disagreeing with this position, that there is any reason to think this was not the Russian missile undergoing a failure.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Your research is awesome...now explain the uniform shape of the spiral and the speed reached by the spiraling gas and the mechanisms that would allow for the witnessed event to happen in the way that it did. I totally agree there was a missile launch, but that some kind of other shielding or whatever caused the spiral and subsequent missile failure. You, sir, have chosen to ignore the hardest part to rationalize...The spiral itself...otherwise excellent math!!! Again based on your conclusions you have only proven the geometry of the supposed missile launch, but failed to explain any of the other impossibilities this situation created. A little hint: Gas and liquid rocket fuel could not be accountable for the spiral, period!



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


ewww, i feel all negative and crap now. you're dripping in some heavy duty anger or something. whew. you okay?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


ewww, i feel all negative and crap now. you're dripping in some heavy duty anger or something. whew. you okay?


Sorry to make you feel that way...truly. However, there have been about 5-6 threads that have arisen due to this phenomenon, and at this rate, it doesn't appear like its going to end. Inevitably, someone will post a thread to refute this one and then it will continue to perpetuate this event and create more division.

Its about time to move on to other world events. And again, I definitely do not wish to inject negativity into you. I just think its time to let go. Here's a smile for you though. Hope it brightens your day...


[edit on 1-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by tauristercus
 


As it is, I have no opinion on what started this spiral, and in the end...I don't care. Whether it was a failed missile or a paranormal monster that is forming on the equivalent scale of Godzilla, ITS OVER. Thanks for all of your work, but, this is a dead horse that has been beaten to the point of it becoming a husk.


No offense man, but your "I have friends in high places" rant has no use here. It serves absolutely no purpose in helping to explain what this event was caused by. It offers no evidence or hypothesis or theory. NONE. IOW it has ZERO value and IMO is pointless to this thread.

The OP has evidently put a lot of time, effort and constructive thought into this. Providing for those who have been following this with sincere interest some concrete evidence to base their views on. It has very apparently swayed some people already.

So where is your critical thinking here? You look at the OP and see charts and graphs and then use it against his work? Your only offering here is that his work is worthless? That's just plain asinine dude.


If you don't care about what it was, as you so poignantly pointed out in your post above, then don't come here and give your zero value opinion which only serves to try to derail a very well laid out hypothesis. Probably one of the best that's come around here in awhile.

You don't seem to have a clue.



[edit on 1-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 



Honestly I am really suprised EM.

For someone who just spent a long time telling people over and over to review the data to talk intelligently on the Haiti Haarp situation, you are not practicing as you preach here.

The OP put a lot of time and effort into this, perhaps you should "respond to the data" presented?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


If you consider Engineers to be "friends in high places," then so be it. Doesn't matter though. Its a dead issue.

Its not like I'm saying I know the president of the USA.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
As much as I enjoy and appreciate all the work put into this, I don't think this proves anything.

The only, and I repeat ONLY thing that this analysis provides is a general location for the ORIGIN of the beam of light. You can assume all that you want about a missile toppling sideways or spinning wildly out of control, but I still and will forever fall lost to the sheer lack of probability involved in created the perfect, symmetrical spiral that was witnessed in the sky that night.

Of course, OP, you stated that it was only in high probability that it was a missile, however, I urge everybody not to simple change their opinions on THAT opinion of yours. This in no way proves the missile theory whatsoever but only leaves it on the table as a viable option.

As for what I believe, I believe that too many ifs and maybes went into the cauldron with it to be sheer coincidence, the same way I look at all viable conspiracy theories. All I ask is that people don't close their minds off to possibility as it seems so many have already chosen to do.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

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 ?


Honestly, I can't believe you're gonna use that definition and still claim it's not a conspiracy.

We have US, and Norwegian sources going along with the Russian line... and if Norway and the US were allowing Russia to test weapons over Norway, or in Space, and covering that up, well, that probably breaks any number of national and international laws on weapons testing.

But, really, on ATS, conspiracy theories are OFTEN not about illegal activity at all.

What illegal happened at Roswell, for instance?

Is that not considered a conspiracy theory?

You say you were engaged in speculation...

Fine, I say you speculated that people were conspiring to keep a secret weapon test from the public.

To me (and to anyone not being a pedant) that's a conspiracy theory.

I like the OP, I just wish we didn't have to engage in baseless speculation about super secret intentional failures, based on absolutely nothing.

Nothing.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Why havent u included the photos from usa\china\mexico\bolivia\germany\japan\italy\spain ect in your research
?

It might help you with the research. Not to destroy your masterpiece but we allready know what the spirals are



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Another impressive contribution tauristercus (thats hard to type)


You've now got me considering that Russia could've certainly misrepresented the results of that Bulava launch, and that perhaps there was no "failure".

It be helpful to see what their previous launches looked like as a comparison. My guess is that they wouldn't have changed the propulsion system midway through the project. The one used in all the other previous launches would've been the same one used in that Dec 9 launch...

Perhaps this was a normal occurrence made much more dramatic by the time of morning, atmospheric conditions, and viewing perspectives.

I know someone here asked why people in Sweden, Finland or Russia didn't report seeing anything like what was seen mainly in Norway.

One consideration would be that weather conditions and cloud cover may've prevented people in these regions from seeing anything at all.

Another thought is that if they did have clear conditions for viewing, being farther east, there would've been more sun higher in the sky, which would've dulled down the "twilight effect"...



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


i don't mind repeats cause i don't read them all.
in fact, i didn't read the first one that spawned this one. so this was all very fun to read.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 



Honestly I am really suprised EM.

For someone who just spent a long time telling people over and over to review the data to talk intelligently on the Haiti Haarp situation, you are not practicing as you preach here.

The OP put a lot of time and effort into this, perhaps you should "respond to the data" presented?

Oh, I understand your disappointment, and I cannot provide you an explanation for my opinion that you would like to hear. I can say this though. As opposed to beating my head and others into the ground on issues like this, I tend to ask those who have experience in such matters. For instance, when the sky spiral initially happened, I didn't attempt to re-create the entire event from the ground up with a limited understanding. I went directly to those who could provide me adequate answers. For instance: My best friend was an engineer who graduated Rose Hullman, utilized his degree on an international level to solve problems etc. Or, I spoke with my father who was an Industrial Engineer for the Navy and was able to prove mathematically that a failed missile launch was not even in the question for an explanation.

Now, if it weren't for the non-stop threads that this issue has spawned, I probably would have little to nothing to say about it, however, we are doing nothing but continuing the polarization of member vs member on an issue that will never be solved. And in the end, the resolution is the same. Believers in the official story will maintain their stance, and (with the exception of the OP) believers in alternate theories will maintain theirs. In the end, even if the official story were to change, each side will still remain in gridlock.

So yes, all information should be weighed...but, I think we've seen this information before. Phage has adequately done this in several threads and has posted all of the same relative information. If anyone ever made a good case for the sky spiral being a missile, it was HIM. Therefore, we are truly seeing NOTHING NEW.

And yes Helmkat...I understand that you think I should look at this information. I looked at it quite thoroughly. The OP worked hard. However, he probably could have saved much time and effort by talking with people who are qualified to give him an accurate picture. That is as much of the research process as anything else.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]





new topics
top topics
 
314
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join