Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

page: 7
316
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AndersonLee
 


Reality doesn't work like that. All the evidence points to a missile, and none doesn't.

reply to post by shagreen heart
 


Solid rocket fuel exhaust, in this case aluminium oxide (sapphire), is blue. The exhaust spiral can be traced back to the horizon, where it clearly is white against the lit sky. It's only after the white spiral starts, and the rocket leaves the atmosphere, does the rocket exhaust become an actual blue spiral.

These points have been brought up time and time again, but some folks simply don't read or understand them.




posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AndersonLee
 


All the evidence points to it being a missile. None doesn't.

reply to post by shagreen heart
 


A rocket, spinning, ejecting something from one side, easily explains all we've seen. Whether the white ejecta is due to its maneuvering capabilities, or some countermeasures, or a failure, is up for debate, but what we saw can 100% be explained by a failed missile. No one has managed to show actual evidence as to why that explanation isn't accurate. They shout a lot, bang on about HAARP and EISCAT, but they have yet managed to show one shred of contrary evidence.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Often after reading a thread on ATS I feel like a mental midget, now I feel mentally impaired. Sir, I salute you. I wish that you would take this unbiased, mathematical, sceintific approach and apply it to every conspiracy theory that comes across ATS. I want to believe, but I want to believe with the evidence that supports my belief. I don't want to blindly swallow every conspiracy theory that comes along.
Is there any chance that I could talk you into looking at the twin towers and tower number seven with that analytical mind of yours. Seriously, please consider it and I will be anxiously awaiting your reply.
I don't know if you are aware that they have discovered nano thermites in the dust from the area. Not off topic...just a teaser

Thanks,
seeashrink

[edit on 1-2-2010 by seeashrink]

[edit on 1-2-2010 by seeashrink]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I would again like to commend the OP on the work showing that the spiral was caused by the Bulava missile. But I do not believe that the possibility of the spiral being a result of a failure has been eliminated.

Without knowing the exact location of the cameras used it is difficult to use local terrain as viewed on Google Earth to arrive at precise directions.

For example in the case of the image from Storsteinnes, by using the coordinates 69º14'15.93"N, 19º18'36.42E and looking almost due east across the bay toward the distinctively shaped mountain, it appears the spiral would have been located just a tiny bit south of east.

A statement from ATS member Gromle who witnessed the spiral, says.

The mountain is called Nordfjellet, and is about 620 meters high.
And the long exposure shot is taken almost in direct eastern direction.
www.abovetopsecret.com... Though it does seem he has mistaken the location of the image and the mountain in it for Nordfjellet it does seem to indicate that the spiral was in the east.

While it is difficult to exactly duplicate the view from Skjervoy on Google Earth, the view to the SSE bears no resemblance to that of the photos while the view to the east does.

With this in mind, the spiral would seem to have been on a different trajectory than the OP places it. Because of the marine warnings which were issued prior to the launch we know the location of the launch. We also know the Bulava is maneuverable. I believe that the missile may have been launched in a north-northeasterly direction then turned east toward its target. This may have been done in order to avoid flying over populated areas of northern Russia or as a test of maneuvering ability. This being the case, it would have been viewed from northern Norway and Sweden with a tail on aspect. This indicates that a spinning third stage could have produced the spiral as has been described.

[edit on 2/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by JayinAR
 


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 maybe not a blue trail like seen in Norway but it's not uncommon for these types of rockets to leave "blue haze or clouds" in its exhaust trail.. have a look


"About fifteen minutes after launch, the sun has set on most of the rocket exhaust. A glowing blue cloud of material is visible at left."


"On October 14th, 2002, the Missile Defense Agency launched a Minuteman II as part of a test of the new "Ground-Based Midcourse Defense". There were thick clouds overhead so I didn't think I would get to see anything of the launch, but I was wrong - the contrail was lit by sunlight and was spectacular. ...... The missile launched from lower right and headed towards the upper left. The blue cloud is from the missile."


And a possible explanation for the twisting and discoloration (so to speak) of the blue trail:


"High altitude winds quickly go to work, twisting the exhaust trail. Ice crystals form and give us the rainbow of colors."
source


Now from all the images we've seen of the Norway event, the spirals seem to have been much closer to the photographers than they actually were, and much lower in altitude than they actually were-- but this thread shows that these spirals were much higher up than we all thought...

I believe too that the blue spiral is actually pointing away from the point of observation (the photographers) and not actually from right to left as it would appear



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





I would again like to commend the OP on the work showing that the spiral was caused by the Bulava missile.


I'm sorry, but he didn't show that the spiral was caused by a Bulava missile.

The OP demonstrated that a missile flying that trajectory couldn't possibly produce a straight on view from those observation sites, wich are parrallel to the course of the alleged missile.

A missile may have been fired, but I still don't see any proof that a Baluva missile created that spiral.

I don't know what gives you the idea that any such proof was presented.

From the OP:




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.


Don't try and turn this thread into something it isn't.

The tread proves that the objects trajectory coincides with the info released by the Russians.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


My apologies here, BUT, the simplest answer is the correct one. And the explanation given is far to long and, in my opinion, misse sthe mark.

The spiral is made up of one white anomoly, not two, so the 180 degrees apart "leak" doesn't fit. The "blue" material, whatever it may be, can not be rocket exhaust, for anyone who has witnessed a rocket launch the exhaust does not end up in a perfect line and does not swirl, nor does it spread out in a blue hue. The rate of speed of the rocket as well would not fit here, distance traveled by time. For this event to be so perfect. From watching the videos taken.

Just doesn't seem to fit. Looking at all the other "rocket" or "missile" failures and seeing no evidence of that happening here. I would like to believe it but just can not. My apologies. I think it is just another distraction from what we really need to focus on.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 





All the evidence points to it being a missile. None doesn't.


For you also, from the OP:




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.


Does this, pretty solid piece of evidence point to it being a missile?

Dave?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by tauristercus
 

The "blue" material, whatever it may be, can not be rocket exhaust, for anyone who has witnessed a rocket launch the exhaust does not end up in a perfect line and does not swirl, nor does it spread out in a blue hue.


yo daddio-

did you see the pics I posted above?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


But realize that the info. presented by the Russians was given prior to the event.
And that it followed a path of least resistance.

Honestly, you would be stretching things to the max if you could argue that it was anything OTHER than just what they said.

Especially considering the visual evidence of the missile exhaust on the horizon.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


The explanation isn't far too long.

Actually, it is short and consice.
Problem is that the visuals he used took up a lot of space.
But they prove his point.

I think that you just didn't want to wade through the material and devote the time it would take to comprehend it.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by JayinAR]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Very well done in terms of surveying know how. Some of your observations and numbers are inaccurate to a degree, but not enough to take away from the approx. location and measurements you have provided.

I have a few questions to pose.

The approx. radius of the "void" and the rate of expansion.
Upon multiple observations it would seem the "void" reaches the size of what you labeled "55km" in approx. 2-3 seconds. That would make the expansion from center a staggering ~20 km/s...within the range of velocity that asteroids and meteors strike earth!

Another expansion related question i pose to you is that of the "fuel spiral" expansion. I wont go into the details, but it would seem the "fuel" expands at a significant rate...faster than any wind speed ive ever seen...or has been recorded.

Other questions arise as to the evidence of this type of projectile, even in a failed state, having the capacity to produce auroral trails, as well as the lack of any sound. It may have been x km away, trust me, when its that high altitude, you WILL hear it, especially if its "self destruct" mechanism creates an expansionary "explosion" of ~20 km/s. If that was actual "mass" doing that and not gluons and photons etc. that would created a substantial pressure wave, leading to some type of sonic output.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Again, I'm not saying a missile wasn't fired.

Why do you ignore the bit were the OP proves that a missile flying that course can't produce head on views of the spiral from those observation points?



[edit on 1-2-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Mostly because the missile is, as of now, classified in terms of propulsion and maneuverability.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Mostly because the missile is, as of now, classified in terms of propulsion and manouverability.


So you ignore a big piece of evidence, because of the lack of knowledge of the Bulava's capabilities, starting from now?

edit to add: At least people aren't saying it was "just a failed missile launch" anymore,

I know a lot of you did.





[edit on 1-2-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


I have to agree with you on the stability of the solid fuel system in missles. Yes, the spiral could have been caused by the failure of an experimental missile, but I'm wondering if the missle caused the spiral while testing "countermeasures". Surely the missile has the capacity to produce the very same things the warhead is protected from? Like wearing body armour that would protect from one's own calibre of weapon...

Thanks for all the time you put in on this project, and thanks for sharing it with us.

S&F



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Don't include me in that generalization.
As far as I know, I was one of the very first to question whether it was failed or not.

But I did, however, say from square one that I believed it to be a missile.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I do not buy the third stage failure. The third stage is a single engine, I'm not sure about altitude control thrusters, cannot find a good diagram. But if it was the altitude control thrusters there would be three or more sources of fuel ejection right? If it was the main engine nozzle jamming it would only be a single source?


A failure of flight control computers, attitude control thrusters or jamming of the main propulsion system's nozzle in a wrong position could all lead to the tumbling of the the missile in flight.

Russian Space Web





Now on the following diagram the Bulava M is the on on the far left. If that is the altitude control thrusters or the spin gas generators on the top that would make 5 sources of ejection.




The entire space vehicle itself can be spun up to stabilize the orientation of a single vehicle axis. This method is widely used to stabilize the final stage of a launch vehicle. The entire spacecraft and an attached solid rocket motor are spun up about the rocket's thrust axis, on a "spin table" oriented by the attitude control system of the lower stage on which the spin table is mounted.

Wikipedia

Does the Bulava utilize the above?

I am not sure how the Bulava design differs from the Minuteman III, but the Minuteman does not have spin gas generators initiated until the Reentry Vehicle is ready to descend.

If you watch the following video it shows all stages of the Minuteman from beginning to end. It is a video made by the USAF 341st Space Wing. It is a bit long but trust me it is worth the time.



Now lastly, if an explosion happens in the vacuum of space, the fireball would not look like the "black hole" in the Norway video, there was no fireball, and the missing fireball should have kept moving at the velocity as the spiral. Unless it was a live nuke then the fireball would expand in milliseconds, like it appeared to. Also it would vaporize any debris. This might explain why we see no debris. This raises a whole other question. If it was a live nuke, WHAT were they shooting at?

For a nuclear explosion, the fireball would radiate mainly in the x-ray and ultraviolet, which are not visible to the eye, although the visible part of the radiation would produce a blue-white flash. The expansion speed would be many hundreds or thousands of times faster than for a chemical explosion, so that the time scale would be less than a millisecond. All the material near the source would be vaporized, so there would be no fragments.

Mad Scientist: Explosions in Space



Now look at the example below of 2007 explosion of the Russian Proton/Breeze M rocket. Fireball and Debris! In Space.



Any way that's my 2c.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by timewalker]

[edit on 2-2-2010 by timewalker]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


I apologize for that, still it is physically impossible that a ballistic missile following the trajectory and launch site disclosed by the Russians, can create those views from those places.





new topics

top topics



 
316
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join