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: 6
318
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 12:54 PM
I am fairly certain the calculations were performed under a capable mind.

These are trig functions and all the bases are covered.

It is also very refreshing to see someone change their opinions on a matter as evidence leads them. You don't see that too often.

I too was assuming that the spiral wasn't the result of a failure in booster separation. My reasoning was the visual aesthetics of the spiral itself. It seemed too fluid to be the result of the failure of a missile moving a couple thousand mph. Of course, it is always nice to see someone actually run the numbers.

Star and Flag for sure!
One of the best I've ever seen on this site.

So, this settles it then, I hope?
A missile launch.
But whatever that was, it was no mistake.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by JayinAR]

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:07 PM
Well Done, on a truly enjoyable thread.
Lots of work has obviously gone into this.

and, I really hope that I'm not about to drop a spanner in the works of the OP's calculations... but...

It was stated that;

The initial analysis will begin with an attempt to determine approximate altitudes associated with each of the points. To do this, we need to obtain a reference angle that can be scaled to each of the points. Thankfully such a reference angle is easily obtained by using the westernmost summit of the Kvanangstinder mountains identified at point A in the following image.

Using Google Earth, we obtain an elevation of 718 metres and a distance of 13,800 kms from the Skjervoy observer to this summit. Some simple trigonometry yields an observation angle of 2.96 degrees - this will become our reference elevation angle that we can subsequently scale to obtain elevation angles for points B through F.

So, the reference angle of 2.96 degrees, was calculated using an elevation of 718m and a distance of 13,800kms from Skjervoy to the Kvanangstinder mountains?

Well, I hope I've misread something, because the distance from Skjervoy to the Kvanangstinder mountains is only about 17.5km.

Hopefully it was just a typo?

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:09 PM
After skimming through some of the replies I have genuinely lost a lot of hope for humanity (didn't have too much left anyhow
).

Look folks,
The data is right there. If you don't want to accept it, then what in the heck are you doing on this thread?!
You can't argue with mathematics!

2+2=4

If you don't agree with it, YOU MUST show why. Otherwise you look foolish.

Jesus Christ.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:10 PM

If people can't demonstrate what they're saying, they shouldn't post it. I think there should be less posted on ATS if it contains rubbish like the baseless "shooting down some trans-dimensional zero-G spacecraft" hypothesis.

We're here to deny ignorance, not allow it to spread unabated. Yes, ATS should help an open mind, but if that mind lacks critical thinking, allowing it to drown in this nonsense is not helping.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:13 PM

The functions of trigonometry only serve to explain the location or the triangulation of the point of supposed origin. It does not explain the speed of the missile, the charge of the atmosphere, the speed of the "supposed" spin out/failure of the missile. It also does not explain the perfect concentric circles which are far too numerous for a standard missile failure, and it does not explain the electromagnetic radiation of the blue trail. As a person who has seen quite a few missile launches, I can say that I HAVE NEVER, EVER, SEEN A BLUE TRAIL LEFT AS A RESULT OF A MISSILE TEST. This would be the first missile ever to leave such a remnant/artifact.

So, in terms of location...maybe. In terms of proving that this was a missile launch, it is still lacking. The OP did a fine job though.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:14 PM
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer

Woah...
Yeah, we need some clarification on that one.
Surely it was just a typo though.
Otherwise the data wouldn't have matched with the reports like it did.

That would throw everything out quite a bit.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:17 PM

Yeah, I really hope so, because everything else does seem to "fit" very well, regardless of what actually made the spiral formation. The rest of the data as calculated, does seem to indicate an object, travelling along the likely path of the Russian missile launch (test or otherwise!)
G

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:17 PM

The only thing that is lacking, insofar as I can tell, is the speed.
If you can show that the thing isn't a rocket because it was moving too slowly, then by all means, go ahead.

For myself, it appears that you have about a 90% (just a number off my head) probability that this was in fact a missile.

But, as I said, by all means... Go ahead.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:19 PM
this has probally already been said but that spiral looks like a failed wormhole attempt

but thats just my opinion..

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:21 PM

Furthermore, your "buddies" doesn't cut it.
One of the reasons I have never questioned the missile theory.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:26 PM
I have a quick question for the more technically minded ATSers...

Given that a "perfect" spiral was observed from many different angles, and that a missile, tumbling or otherwise, cannot realistically reproduce this effect, from all of those angles of observation,
Is there a 3-dimensional phenomenon, possibly in the form of a spherical "field" of energy, which could replicate a visible spiral, from any angle of observation? I'm thinking of some kind of oscillating wave or particle stream which actually follows a 3-D trajectory, forming a sphere, but which when observed directly, in this case from various locations on the ground, looks like a circular spiral pattern?

Thanks,
G

[edit for spelling!]

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Gordi The Drummer]

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:41 PM

Your conclusion that the spiral event was not triggered by a 3rd stage failure or malfunction of the Russian rocket is supported by photos of the spiral itself. If the spiral were generated by a spinning object at its center, this should be apparent in differences in phase at the center, since all photos would not have been taken at exactly the same phase of the spiral. However, if one compares different photos of the spiral, all seem to show the same phase. This indicates that the generator of the spiral was not rotating, and is more consistent with the use of some kind of projector.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:42 PM

That was maybe the best post I have read on ATS in a long while. You just can't argue with science. What I particularly liked was the fact that you were prepared to re-visit and correct an earlier post in light of new information, and that this re-working of your theory has led to possible visual proof of next generation technology being tested. Giving you a big thumbs up man, much respect!

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 01:56 PM
Thank you. Easy to follow and well presented. Thanks for going the extra mile and sharing.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:01 PM

Well, obviously, I can neither prove nor disprove this theory. But, I did post some links slightly before your reply to me.

The first one is the most sound and reputable link as far as I'm concerned. I am still looking for a source that is pretty hard to debate. As soon as I find it, I will provide it for you.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:02 PM

You didn't even read the entire thread did you? Once it got to the math you clicked back over to the porn tab, rubbed one out then posted someone else opinion you read on an earlier thread?

His evidence, which any intellect would admit, is thorough and deserves scrutiny. Why are you so obsessed with HARRP and other atmospheric heaters? His evidence should you actually choose to examine it does not "jump on media bandwagon" as you stated. He explains that this is possibly new technology, not a failed missile launch but possible a successful one. He is giving you an alternative to the "Official statement" and your assumptions that EISCAT is responsible, which I myself assumed, until reading this thread (which there is much to be done in fact checking ie: math).

You clearly don't think much for yourself and therefore thrive on disinfo, and probably whatever you think is cool, must be the truth. Why don't you go back to the Aliens & UFO's thread, where highly credible evidence is rarely presented and you're elementary comment would be better suited. No, I am not saying he is right. I am saying that WE have no evidence to say he isn't.

Without data you are just another person with an opinion.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Gordi The Drummer
I have a quick question for the more technically minded ATSers...

Given that a "perfect" spiral was observed from many different angles, and that a missile, tumbling or otherwise, cannot realistically reproduce this effect, from all of those angles of observation,
Is there a 3-dimensional phenomenon, possibly in the form of a spherical "field" of energy, which could replicate a visible spiral, from any angle of observation? I'm thinking of some kind of oscillating wave or particle stream which actually follows a 3-D trajectory, forming a sphere, but which when observed directly, in this case from various locations on the ground, looks like a circular spiral pattern?

Thanks,
G

[edit for spelling!]

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Gordi The Drummer]

Very good observation. This fact rarely gets addressed when postulating the source of the spiral.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:08 PM
I've said it since day one that this was a new type of plasma driven missile. Even the Chinese are working on one already. But hey, keep believing that HAARP nonsense.

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:38 PM

Well mate, I have to take my hat off and ask you to stand up for a round of applause.

The thread was brilliant. sound reasoning and well presented.

The maths was easy to follow for anyone with high school trig and laid out in a way that even for those without a maths background, they could follow and understand. Making the information understandable has been expertly accomplished my good man!

I'm sold on your conclusions, am convinced of the rigidity of your figures and agree with your assertions...now if you could just let me know what the hell it was!!!

All the best mate, Kiwifoot!

Oh I almost forgot, STARRED and for damn sure FLAGGED bud!

[edit on 1-2-2010 by kiwifoot]

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:41 PM

Well after further review I'm still holding on to my notion that the missile theory is the best one out there.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Here's a few...

Another take on the same thing...
www.examiner.com... ss-destruction

Again, thank you for the links.

The first one was probably your best one, but I have issues with some of the writers assumptions in his analysis.

And the third one, well,... David Wilcock I find hard to believe most of the time. I would be hard pressed to take a lot of what he says all that seriously quite honestly.

With that said it seems to me that a lot of the basis of assumption about this spiral is taken from photographs which used a longer exposure time, which seemingly enhanced the spiral effect and maybe made it look larger and more magnificent then it actually was...and perhaps has allowed for some over extended presumptions

However I've noticed that when watching the videos of this event, the spiral doesn't appear as dramatic in its scope...

[edit on 1-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

new topics

top topics

318