Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the analysis of an event (Part 2)

page: 1
86
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+57 more 
posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
In my previous thread entitled

"Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I attempted to use the existing publicly available photos of the spiral event that was observed by many, primarily within Norway, on 9 December 2009, to locate as accurately as possible the location that the event took place in. This location coincided with, and substantiated to a high degree, the theory that the spiral was the result of a Russian missile test that allegedly was in progress at the very same time as the appearance of the spiral.

The leading candidate explanation to emerge was one that blamed the spiral formation (and associated features) on leaking fuel/propellant from the missiles 3rd stage. This seemed like a reasonable explanation, however my analysis indicated that even though the possibility was extremely high that the Russian missile WAS involved in the event, the actual mechanism of spiral formation did NOT appear to be due to a simple mechanical failure within the 3rd stage.
Unfortunately, there was no other explanation available that would satisfactorily explain how the spiral was created - and so my analysis was left at that point.


It became clear that we needed photos of the event that would be able to conclusively demonstrate that either a missile WAS, or WAS NOT the primary mechanism directly responsible for the incredible spiral formation.
Since that previous thread, I've spent a great deal of time and effort in tracking down every published photo and video of the event and examining them for even the slightest bit of visual evidence to either corroborate or disprove the "missile created the spiral rings" belief.
Eventually, I succeeded in finding a single image that did indicate that some kind of structure was indeed to be found at the very center of the spiral. Admittedly, this image could be a heck of a lot clearer and crisper but considering that I had already shown that the spiral event took place not only many 100's of kilometres distant from the observers, but also at an altitude of many 100's of kilometres - so I guess we should consider ourselves fortunate for even having this single tantalizing image.

Now, in the following image pair, I show the original image as it was taken but then also show the same image with the colours reversed. The reason for this is that details barely visible in normal mode can be made more prominent and easier to see when colour reversed. Except for the reversal, the image remains identical to the original.

Ok, now lets take a look at the upper, original image ... and direct your attention to the center of the spiral where if you look carefully, you should be able to make out what looks like a thin dark line or smudge.
In the reverse coloured image, the line of course becomes white.
Yes, I know, hard to make out in these small images ... but its definitely there





Now the the above colour reversed image is shown in the following images at magnifications of x250, x500, x750, x1000, x2000, x3000 and x4000.
In each image, the central structure will show additional structure and detail.

Image enlarged x250


Image enlarged x500


Image enlarged x750



We're finally at sufficient magnification to see that whatever this structure/object may be, its starting to look less and less like a rigid, cylindrical shaped missile ... and where's the alleged fuel leakage thats supposed to be venting from opposite sides and should at least be visible ?

Image enlarged x1000


Image enlarged x2000


Image enlarged x3000


Image enlarged x4000



Ok, admittedly the above enlarged images don't really tell us much more than we already knew (or didn't know), but in my opinion they're one more indicator that whatever mechanism DID create the spiral phenomena, its looking less and less like a leaking missile was responsible.



And finally, an additional tidbit of information regarding the speed at which various parts of the event seem to have taken place at.

In my previous thread, I was able to determine many properties of the event such as it's location, the various altitudes at which the components of the event took place and also various dimensions e.g. diameter of spiral, etc.
But one important property was not determined, namely what sort of speeds were involved as it was obvious that the event itself was NOT stationary but moved across the sky. It's important to obtain such speed measurements to see if they're consistent with the prevailing failed missile scenario.

In order to obtain some idea of the speeds involved, we're going to examine a segment of the video taken at Tromso and in particular the segment where we can see the last stages of the spiral ... where one moment we can see a complete spiral and then seconds later, the spiral has almost completely dissipated. This entire segment took approximately 10 seconds.

In this image, I've shown 3 points taken from the segment we're examining, a starting, middle and end point. As can be seen from the time stamp, the entire segment took approximately 10 seconds to complete.




In the following image, I've shown the location of these 3 points on GE and the calculated distance of 108 kms covered.



Ok, lets get an idea of the speed involved during this 10 second event ...

To cover a distance of 108 kms in 10 seconds gives us an equivalent speed of 38,800 kms per hour !!

Putting this into perspective ... as of 2006, the Topol SS 27 was rated as THE fastest missile in the world with an estimated speed of 10.800 mph (17,280 kph).



For anything to travel from Kapustny to Balkash in 24 minutes, it had to fly at a speed of three miles a second. That’s 180 miles a minute or 10,800 miles an hour. If the reports were indeed true, the Topol RS 12 or the Topol SS 27, as it is known in military circles around the world, had to be the fastest thing man has ever seen.


So, the collapse and dissipation of the spiral occurred over a distance of 108 kms and apparently at twice the speed of the fastest reported Russian missile !

Those of you who have read my previous thread as well, will by now clearly understand why I state that in my belief, even though a Russian missile most probably was somehow involved in the Norway Spiral event, the evidence is stacking up very quickly against the popular belief/explanation that it was all caused by nothing more than a fuel leak in the 3rd stage.

Something else, something much more significant transpired on that day ... and again, from my point of view, it was NOT a failure as reported by the Russians and the media but more likely a SUCCESSFUL test of new technology, either propulsion or weaponry.




[edit on 7/2/10 by tauristercus]




posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 



Your analysis, as usual, is impeccable.
Star and Flag.
Jokingly, the magnification looks like the inside of a mouth, with visualizing of the uvula.
Maybe G_D is yelling at us.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
reply to post by tauristercus
 



Your analysis, as usual, is impeccable.
Star and Flag.
Jokingly, the magnification looks like the inside of a mouth, with visualizing of the uvula.
Maybe G_D is yelling at us.


Thanks for that, appreciated !

And yes, the comparison to the back of the throat DID spring to mind the moment that I enlarged the image ... but I resisted from actually saying it



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Dear goodness, you have uncovered something truly amazing if your information is 100% legitimate.


Star and Flag



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


How did you find out the locations of the video stills in GE? The video is hand-held, wobbling considerably, and continually being zoomed in and out. The slightest movement when portraying something hundreds of kilometres away is going to introduce some staggering errors.

Also, an ICBM in its boost phase can be travelling at about 7 km/s, or 15,700 mph. I don't know what your margin of error is for your YouTube-to-Google-Earth mapping, as you didn't state it, so I don't know if that falls within it.

The smudges in that over-enlarged photo are smaller than the encoding blocks from the original, rendering them very likely complete compression artefacts. I'm not saying that's definitely what is shown, but it's a compelling (and far more simple) explanation.

Good work, and a compelling idea, but your evidence seems a little shaky
Perhaps we can clean it up?



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
wow, you must really be interested in this spiral to have gone to all that trouble.

Thanks for the incredible research and calculations!!!

I for one had a very hard time swallowing the missile story, in your opinion, could this spiral have been a projection of some sort, either from the ground or from a satilite? or even a combination of the two???

Reason I am asking, is that I have been wondering about the claimed false flag alien invasion for a while now....could this have been a test run to see if the projectors actually work.

Also in the videos, there seemed to be laser lines in the clouds as you would get with club laser shows, just an observation from someone that hasnt really taken the time to look into this phenomenon!

Thx again! S & F



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I found this Russian complex on GE,
65 18 08.59 N 40 59 34.04 E
It appears that this complex has a semi circular buried track approx 3.5 miles long.
And maybe an semi circular antenna array 65 17 20.39 N 41 00 49.01 E
The end of the last segment of track is very close to the trajectory of the spiral.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Violater1]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Tauristercus, raising the bar one ATS thread at a time.

Thanks again.

I do think it highly suspicious that Tequila Sunrise was scheduled for the same day, was it not? I probably speak for more than myself when I say that in my view, coincidences are rarely coincidences. My sci-fi novel mind wants there to be a EISCAT connection still.

You have shown that something was clearly up there, but probably not a bulova missile.

It would be interesting to find out what exactly was happening, because yet again we are left to fend for ourselves as the media buries their heads in the sand.

Star and Flag.




posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by corvin77
wow, you must really be interested in this spiral to have gone to all that trouble.

Thanks for the incredible research and calculations!!!

I for one had a very hard time swallowing the missile story, in your opinion, could this spiral have been a projection of some sort, either from the ground or from a satilite? or even a combination of the two???

Reason I am asking, is that I have been wondering about the claimed false flag alien invasion for a while now....could this have been a test run to see if the projectors actually work.

Also in the videos, there seemed to be laser lines in the clouds as you would get with club laser shows, just an observation from someone that hasnt really taken the time to look into this phenomenon!

Thx again! S & F


IMHO, it won't be a false flag.
Please read Jim Marrs book,"PSI SPIES." It is about the successful military endeavor on remote viewing. He has the released classified documents as well as the commanding officers testimonies. All this not covered by the MSM.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Super impressive post yet again!
Thank you for calculating the speed of said event, I was curious how fast the object was travelling. Seemed mind boggling to me!! Great find, friend!



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus
 




All very valid points that you've raised .. let me see if I can clarify somewhat.



How did you find out the locations of the video stills in GE? The video is hand-held, wobbling considerably, and continually being zoomed in and out. The slightest movement when portraying something hundreds of kilometres away is going to introduce some staggering errors.


I completely agree with you regarding the observers "wobbling" as s/he was recording but thankfully this isn't as big an impediment as it may seem.
In my previous thread, I was hesitant to use the Tromso video in my attempt to derive the event location because unlike all the other images I used, Tromso didn't have an easily identifiable background that I could overlay onto the comparable GE location to confirm the observers location.
However, and thankfully, the opening seconds of the Tromso video shows the COMPLETE spiral (before dissipation) and just happens to include a shot of a very famous Tromso landmark ... the Arctic Cathedral ... and based on the location of this Cathedral and the spiral visible above and to the right of it, was sufficient to enable the use of this video as part of my initial triangulation by mapping the Cathedral onto GE.
So, knowing where the spiral direction from Tromso was, and in conjunction with other location directions, wasn't difficult at all to pinpoint that particular phase of the event over the White Sea.
Other locations allowed the directionality of the partial and full spiral collapse to also be ascertained quite readily.

So having a good idea as to the location of the complete spiral as well as the locations of the partially and fully collapsed spirals, it was straightforward to determine the distance on GE between the uncollapsed spiral and the eventual collapsed spiral ... approximately 108 kms apart.
Bear in mind that there is NO question that the full spiral images and the collapsing spiral images WERE in motion along the estimated missile trajectory.
Knowing the time elapsed between starting spiral collapse and ending spiral collapse, obtained from the time stamp of the video, approximate 10 seconds ... gives the incredibly high calculated speed.
I've double, triple checked everything and the final value of 38,800 kms per hour stands.



Also, an ICBM in its boost phase can be travelling at about 7 km/s, or 15,700 mph. I don't know what your margin of error is for your YouTube-to-Google-Earth mapping, as you didn't state it, so I don't know if that falls within it.

Agreed ... but 15,700 mph (25,120 kph) is far short of my calculated value ... and such a high speed i simply can't explain satisfactorily.

As for margin of error, can't see that there is much as the video gives a definitive value of around 10 seconds and the triangulated event locations in the White Sea are the result of 6 distinct data points ... all in agreement ... and don't forget that the derived White Sea trajectory heads straight as an arrow (well, on a sphere that would be a curved arrow :-) ) towards the kamchatka target range .. which gives me additional confidence in my event location derivation.




The smudges in that over-enlarged photo are smaller than the encoding blocks from the original, rendering them very likely complete compression artifacts. I'm not saying that's definitely what is shown, but it's a compelling (and far more simple) explanation.

No argument from me that the original image ideally should have been one of much higher quality but unfortunately that was the best I could locate.
Even so, at low magnification it's completely apparent that there is some kind of artifact located at the centre of the spiral and it looks nothing like the expected cylindrical shape of a missile, not even an out of focus and indistinct cylindrical shape ... and no sign whatsoever of 2 exhaust leaks which should be obvious even under enlargement. As far as I can tell, the artifact shows only a single distinct extension connecting it to the spiral and not two as there should be for a double fuel leak on opposite sides of the structure. Even with magnification distortion, those two leaks SHOULD still be evident, even if only as indistinct smudges ... but if it is a leak, then only one seems to be visible.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

Wow what can I say. I've read the previous posts you made on the subject. You do make for a compelling case each time. I must admit though some of the equations go way over my head which impresses me even further.

Keep up the good work bro

Star



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


In the photos, at that range, the missile would be less than a pixel across. Also, from the alignment of the spirals, we'd be looking at the missile from nearly the end-on, meaning it would not be cylindrical, but round. I really can't see how we can read anything from such an inaccurate source as a heavily-blown up JPEG. I do applaud your efforts, though.

As for calculating the speed of the missile, I think using one video is not going to yield the most accurate results. The time line on a YouTube clip is only down to the nearest second, and from what I know about flash video delivery (which I do for a living, so a fair bit) timestamps are far from accurate.

I'd love to agree with you, I really would. The level of research you've performed is staggering in its intensity, but I feel you are stacking statistical error upon error, which magnifies the margin of error fantastically. If we had a calculated missile speed of hundreds of times that which we would expect, or even 10 times, then it would be understandable to take the findings as indicative of something contrary to the official explanation, but as it is, less than double the expected speed is not very significant with such margins of error in measurement.

So, basically, I'm pretty sure if there's a smoking gun out there, you'll find it. I'm also pretty sure this is not it.

Again, thanks for the fine work.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Once again, you have outdone yourself sir...now we just need to figure out what sort of technology REALLY caused the spiral effect...anyway you look at it, I can't see a fuel leak causing such an effect...once again, nice work, and thank you for putting in the effort so we can better understand what really transpired on that mysterious day.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


When I look at the top photo... the first thing that comes to my mind are ripples... not a spiral. Like ripples that are created by a shock wave... or when a small pebble hits water... or when a sound weapon reverberates after hitting the atmosphere.

Like how it would look if we were in the water looking up at the surface just as a pebble hit... and the rings that were created after the pebble's impact.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus
 






In the photos, at that range, the missile would be less than a pixel across. Also, from the alignment of the spirals, we'd be looking at the missile from nearly the end-on, meaning it would not be cylindrical, but round. I really can't see how we can read anything from such an inaccurate source as a heavily-blown up JPEG. I do applaud your efforts, though.

Again, I'm in full agreement with you regarding the quality of the image that I used but as mentioned, it was the ONLY one that showed ANYTHING at the centre of the spiral ... and only after colour reversal to bring out the latent details (if any).
Yes, at that range you'd be incredibly lucky to see any part of the missile, let alone just the final (smaller) 3rd stage, after stages 1 & 2 had been jettisoned. Which is why the significance of the central artifact is so important. For it to be visible even in the original photo (otherwise I wouldn't have picked up on it) and then for it to assume at least some semblance of shape and outline in subsequent enlargements, tells us that SOMETHING was at the centre of the spiral .. and that that SOMETHING was sizeable in dimensions.




As for calculating the speed of the missile, I think using one video is not going to yield the most accurate results. The time line on a YouTube clip is only down to the nearest second, and from what I know about flash video delivery (which I do for a living, so a fair bit) timestamps are far from accurate.

Sure, the time indicator on the video may not have been accurate down to the millisecond, but watching the spiral collapse you can plainly see the video hasn't been speeded up or slowed down and seems to be playing back in real time ... therefore I'll take that 10 second estimate AS realistic.




I'd love to agree with you, I really would. The level of research you've performed is staggering in its intensity, but I feel you are stacking statistical error upon error, which magnifies the margin of error fantastically.

I'm hard put to see where there would be significant errors involved ... the location of the event trajectory was based on not just one or two or even three data points, but on a total of 6 ... meaning that the plotted trajectory should be considered accurate. After all, just HOW MANY data points would be needed for accurate triangulation, if 6 are considered insufficient ?

And again, I point out that the extended trajectory intersects the Kamchatka target down range EXACTLY ... it doesn't come close or miss it by a few 100 kms ... it hits it smack centre on which gives me additional verification that my estimated trajectory and therefore event location has validity.

Anyway, in the final analysis I guess you and I (and the rest of the population) will never hear the ultimate explanation .. all we can do is keep chipping away and see what mysteries we can hope to reveal



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
I found this Russian complex on GE,
65 18 08.59 N 40 59 34.04 E
It appears that this complex has a semi circular buried track approx 3.5 miles long.
And maybe an semi circular antenna array 65 17 20.39 N 41 00 49.01 E
The end of the last segment of track is very close to the trajectory of the spiral.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Violater1]



I've just taken a look and yes, it does look interesting ... but truthfully, I think that we're looking at a normal open-cut mining area ... not the most environmentally friendly way of mining


However, about 70kms away is the Russian naval base of Arkhangelsk in the White Sea, home to the sub being used to test the Bulava missile.

Here's a pic of a couple of really nifty looking Russian subs moored to the dockside at Arkhangelsk.




posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Amazing work OP

I've always held doubts of it being a missile

i suspect it's a top secret weapon program or something along those lines

so i doubt we'll ever truly know what happened untill maybe 50 years when they feel its ok to disclose such info


im sure alot of ppl confused America's stealth bombers as UFO's when they first seen it and im sure America kept on denying its involvement or knowledge of anything more untill it finally went public and released it's info on them

you don't want your enemies or would be foes knowing what you got up ya sleeve do you?



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
S & F! Once again, a well researched and put together post. I've really enjoyed your work. I don't think we will ever really know what happened that night until / unless someone spills the beans. Let's hope that happens. Judging by the silence of all the governments, I won't hold my breath.

Does make you think that it must be something VERY secretive


[edit on 7-2-2010 by TortoiseKweek]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Baring in mind that the photo was taken through the entirety of the atmosphere, at when the sun is still shining through the upper layers, means anomalies like that could simply be perturbations of the light due to refraction after passing through gases of different densities for tens of kilometers. That would explain why only that photo had them. I'm merely pointing out that mundane explanations exist for what we can see in those photos, and until they are cleared up, it's folly to assume something more exotic is to blame.

We don't know when 1 second starts or ends on the YouTube time line, so what might appear to be 10 seconds could be anywhere from 9 to 11, representing a +/- 10% error, just from that one measurement.

Please don't think I'm attacking your methodology - it's straight-up refreshing on ATS. I'm merely saying that even when you take accurate readings, when you use a chain of them to come to a conclusion, you have to multiply the margins of error to determine the end margin of error, and in this case even if the readings are accurate (which, from bog-standard digital cameras taking images of events over one hundred kilometers away, have a significant margin of error in them, due to the quality of the CCD, the compression used to store the photos, and the subsequent re-compressing during resizing/post-processing), the final readings are going to have a somewhat sizable margin of error.

You've done stellar work, but until you can cut down or quantify that margin of error, maybe by comparing different videos of the event or through different means, we're still firmly in the grey area where you might, or might not, be on to something. And, as boring as it is, critical thought demands we not make leaps of faith without good reason.

So, again, freakin' excellent work. If we are to know, definitively, what happened in the sky that night, it will come from work like yours. I know you can get there.

reply to post by TortoiseKweek
 


I hate to burst your bubble, but Russia warned of a missile launch before it happened, and subsequently admitted it was their missile after it failed. True, they originally said it wasn't, but admissions of failure are rare from grandstanding governments, especially with embarrassing failures in such high-profile projects such as an ICBM, and from the world-leader in ICBM technology, too.





new topics

top topics



 
86
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join