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.
Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the analysis of an event (Part 2), page 1
privacy
Topic started on 7-2-2010 @ 05:31 PM by tauristercus
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).
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]
"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]
reply posted on 7-2-2010 @ 05:49 PM by tauristercus
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
reply posted on 7-2-2010 @ 06:12 PM by davesidious
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?
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?reply posted on 7-2-2010 @ 06:34 PM by loveguy
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!
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!
reply posted on 7-2-2010 @ 06:46 PM by tauristercus
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.
reply posted on 7-2-2010 @ 06:46 PM by Wanderer72
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
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
reply posted on 7-2-2010 @ 06:54 PM 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.
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.
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.
reply posted on 7-2-2010 @ 07:03 PM by Hedera Helix
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.
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.
reply posted on 7-2-2010 @ 07:15 PM by tauristercus
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
reply posted on 7-2-2010 @ 08:40 PM by davesidious
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.
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.
The mystery of 100+ mpg cars, and the disappearance & deaths of men behind it
Posted 12 days ago with 101 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 101 member flags
Scientists able to talk to and teach dolphins sentences - Dolphins share a universal language.
Posted 10 days ago with 92 member flags
Posted 10 days ago with 92 member flags
Pirate Bay to Allow Real-Object Downloads. The Real Reason for SOPA, IMO.
Posted 12 days ago with 74 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 74 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Western forces set to help Syrian people. DU, Willie Pete, cluster bombs
ATS Skunk Works, Posted 28 minutes ago
ATS Skunk Works, Posted 28 minutes ago
(Casey Heynis) Bullying hero's back to school message
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 1 hours ago
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 1 hours ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Big Name Neuroscientist Announces Telepathy as Proven Fact!
Paranormal Studies, Posted 9 hours ago, 34 flags
Paranormal Studies, Posted 9 hours ago, 34 flags
The Most Beautiful Video I Have Ever Seen In My Life!! Please Watch
Links & Other Resources, Posted 17 hours ago, 27 flags
Links & Other Resources, Posted 17 hours ago, 27 flags
You Can NOT....Handle the Truth!!! The 10 Truths You Will Not Accept!!!!
The Gray Area, Posted 8 hours ago, 23 flags
The Gray Area, Posted 8 hours ago, 23 flags
42,000-year-old paintings : 'The oldest work of art ever' discovered
Ancient & Lost Civilizations, Posted 13 hours ago, 21 flags
Ancient & Lost Civilizations, Posted 13 hours ago, 21 flags
Interfax: Iran Capable Of Striking Us Forces Anywhere In The World If Attacked By The Us- Iranian Am
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 17 hours ago, 19 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 17 hours ago, 19 flags
Ron Paul campaign Press Release: Ron Paul WINNING the Battle for Delegates.
2012 US Elections, Posted 9 hours ago, 19 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 9 hours ago, 19 flags
Parents furious as 13-year-old girls given contraceptive implants at school without their knowledge
Breaking Political News, Posted 8 hours ago, 16 flags
Breaking Political News, Posted 8 hours ago, 16 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
You Can NOT....Handle the Truth!!! The 10 Truths You Will Not Accept!!!!
The Gray Area, Posted 8 hours ago, 151 replies
The Gray Area, Posted 8 hours ago, 151 replies
Missouri teen girl gets 'life' for killing 9yr girl to 'find out what it felt like'...
Other Current Events, Posted 11 hours ago, 89 replies
Other Current Events, Posted 11 hours ago, 89 replies
Interfax: Iran Capable Of Striking Us Forces Anywhere In The World If Attacked By The Us- Iranian Am
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 17 hours ago, 71 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 17 hours ago, 71 replies
Anti-Bullying campaign - Right or Wrong?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 13 hours ago, 62 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 13 hours ago, 62 replies
Disc shaped metallic flying object above the clouds - Study case....
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 16 hours ago, 53 replies
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 16 hours ago, 53 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.527 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.527 seconds
