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

page: 3
86
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Very thorough research, respect.

I see someone brought up Richard Hoagland already, I just thought I'd broadly state what his conclusions are, as of 3 or so days ago when he was on Coast to Coast.

He thinks that there was indeed some kind of space-based technology that "impacted" the rocket mid-flight. However, he concluded that the spiral was slowly drifting at no more than 200-300 MPH across the sky. In fact his conclusions hinge heavily upon this particular aspect of his analysis.

He thinks that there is some kind of "third party" space program. I think he keeps speculation on the identity of this program at a minimum, and instead focuses on the circumstantial evidence that he can readily analyze. So aliens, humans, whatever, he thinks there is SOMEone out there, that has no political ties to either the US or Russian government.

He said that the deployment of this weapon was intended to send a message to the US and to Russia - the message being, stay out of space. As evidence of this, he cites Obama's actions before and just after his State of the Union address. Apparently (I can't confirm this) Obama, his cabinet, NASA, and many prominent sources were steadfastly determined to enlarge the space program, not gut it.

Along comes this Norway Spiral intervention, and everything changes.

I believe that was the jist of what he was saying - I might be wrong on a few points. Cheers, and again, I'm very impressed with the amount of research you have done. With that and perhaps a bit of luck, we'll get some answers.




posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Hi tauristicus! I was very impressed by part 1; part 2 I find merely impressive lol
I think the photo is so bad that no conclusions from it are safe. It seems to show some object at the centre, but it could be anything, perhaps even something viewed through the spiral but not actually related to it. An outrageous coincidence? Perhaps, but since this is the only image of many that show anything in the centre, perhaps not so outrageous.
Regarding the speed calculation, was it 108km over ground or as part of an orbital circumference? Were you able to determine if the event maintained a constant altitude or could it have been rising or falling, adding to the linear distance it travelled?
S&F!



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Crap, sorry - I should have been more clear in my request. I wanted to know how you turned frames from the video into locations in GE. Your technique of plotting the spiral in GE from photos showing landmarks is well-documented (and still awesome).

Again, sorry for making you write all that out. It'll help others, though, I'm sure. These threads will be referred to for aeons to come, I'm sure.

reply to post by amari
 


It was measured at over 100 km, using trigonometry from measurements taken from the photos. There is practically no atmosphere up there at all. This has been covered to death in other threads.

reply to post by FermiFlux
 


Parts I & II were fantastic. He seems to have suffered a rather large blow to the head between writing parts II and III, though, as his standard of evidence completely disappears, and he degrades into blathering-idiot-esque conspiracy nutjob rambing insanity.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Well all his personal beliefs aside about the meaning behind it all I think his evidence and logic stays consistent with the topic at hand and backs his views. Allbeit wrong or right.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Can someone give some more accurate information how to re-create the surroundings in Google Earth to get the observers exact location ?

I tried to re-create the Harstad mountain view, but for a novice like me ..

1) I don't know how to get this view
from GE.

2) I don't know how to make the direct Google Earth link (.kmz file) to work. (when I try launch the kmz from the view I saved, it 'hits a mountain' and don't go to the point I saved it from)

3) I don't know how to upload a kmz file to abovetopsecret.

Anyway, what I managed to do is to get this really poor view towards south-east from above Harstad. Here is a link to a compiled pic that has op's pic that I tried to re-create, and what I only managed to do :-I

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a kmz file uploaded to few places

uploading.com...
www.2shared.com...

Is it possible to get a .kmz link to these views you use to determine the observers location ? Is it possible to get the data of the location (x" N y" E), and perhaps a compass of those ?


Those kmz's can be made by right-clicking a (place)marker and saving it.




[edit on 8-2-2010 by inthemistandfog]



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


On thursday 2/5 coast to coast had a guest who stated the missle was captured by former nazi scientists as a warning to the US and Russia that the non-country aligned group has super advanced tech.

Of course no way to prove it but tantlizing never the less.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Hello all, I’m fairly new here while I’ve been reading ATS for a longtime I have recently become a member and began to post. Just a informative and great all around site. Now this issue of the spiral I’ve been seeing pop up a lot and I’ve been seeing many different views. Some very good information that it is a missile launch and that it is not a missile. The Data on both sides is presented very well by both sides and you can tell these folks are doing their home work. I give both sides credit for the research their putting into it. All the information I’ve seen and read though I’ve never seen anyone bring up one simple point, maybe I missed it, and it’s something I noticed right away. I’ve seen a lot of launches from the space shuttle to missiles on TV and the internet. Plus you can view a ton of different types of missile launches on you tube. Every launch I’ve seen, the exhaust trail is always, always bigger at the point of liftoff then to the destination or the end result of the flight path. The smoke trail or whatever the right term is for it, it’s always wilder from the back to a thin point where it exits the rocket, shuttle etc, why not on this? That’s why I know this isn’t a missile. Keep up the goodwork all.

S&F



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by zarp3333
reply to post by Violater1
 


On thursday 2/5 coast to coast had a guest who stated the missle was captured by former nazi scientists as a warning to the US and Russia that the non-country aligned group has super advanced tech.

Of course no way to prove it but tantlizing never the less.



Yeah, that was Richard C.Hoagland on Coast, I linked his site and the Coast episode on youtube a few posts back. (Page 2)



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FermiFlux
 


I really don't think so. He makes so many leaps of faith, he's either suddenly very ignorant of critical thinking, or being intellectually dishonest.

reply to post by Cybercrash
 


This missile is rotating very quickly (something the space shuttle doesn't do), and is in space (which launching missiles are not). The spreading of the blue exhaust is due to the spinning of the missile, and is directly consistent with a missile attempting to fly straight while having a lateral force applied to it. If you follow the blue exhaust down to the horizon you can clearly see a cloudy exhaust trail diffusing in the wind.

To say you know it is not a missile, when that is your only 'evidence', is far from rational



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I think it is a missile.

To explain where the missing fuselage (or third stage) is in the picture, it is either painted black or designed like a stealth missile. That would make it much more difficult to visualize at night.






Simulations of damaged projectiles:





The speed of the "blackhole" is incredible, but I have a thought on that too. If the missile did not use a common solid rocket fuel, it was probably a mixture of a fluid and a gas. If the fluid leaked out, then the gas chamber (typically compressed oxygen) burst, that would explain a very fast pressure wave that would blot out the middle of the vapor trail faster than it would normally dissipate.


Even if I'm slightly wrong, the evidence for a missile is substantial.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus

This is amazing work for someone withouth the contact of NASA. A huge tip 2 you,store everything you have made for research on this case, you have no idea how close you are.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I should have been more specific... instead of "compressed oxygen," I should have said liquid oxygen (LOX).

Liquid Oxygen from Wikipedia (LOX)



boiling point: 90.19 K (−297.33 °F, −182.96 °C) at 101.325 kPa (760 mmHg)
...
expansion ratio of 861:1 at 68 °F (20 °C)
...
LOX used in space rockets (and probably in aerospace) is a mixture of liquid oxygen with up to 25% liquid ozone and several additives to stabilize this liquid oxyidator



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
so are we all going to die, fly or saved as a result of this spiral or not? i really do not care what it is unless it affect us. i'm ignorant, its my nature



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Great post! Thanks. The "missile" story seemed concocted quickly and I've always had my doubts about it. Also, the story seemed to go away really fast. (Maybe because Brangelina wasn't involved :lol


[edit on 8-2-2010 by maybee]



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Great thread again, S+F.

I thought i would chip in and let you know that the speed you calculated is very close to the escape velocity of earth, approx 11.2 km/s. That is, if the object would fly straight up into space at that speed, it would not fall back down.

Considering it was flying at an angle, the remains of the object could be in orbit right now.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Great posts by the op.

Have you looked into the possibility that it was a sounding rocket used to blanket or target satellite communications?

I mentioned this way back on the original post of the event, it seems possible that it could be a sounding rocket used to disrupt gps and communications, specifically military.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Protector
 


Cruise missiles stay in the atmosphere for their entire journey (hence the wings on the side, and air intake for the jet engine (not rocket).

The "black hole" is just space becoming visible after the white spiral has moved out the way. It's growing at the same speed as the outside of the spiral. As it happened in space, there can not be a shock wave, as a shock wave requires a medium through which to travel, and a vacuum is the very opposite of a medium


reply to post by maybee
 


Did you read the thread? He's arguing in favour of it being a missile, and not anything else. He's arguing that the nature of the missile is unknown (which I don't happen to believe), but that it is still a missile.

reply to post by wtfhuh
 


Then surely it would have delivered its payload parallel to the ground, and not vertically, to maximise the area of space it would mask. So far there is no evidence at all that this is not simply the Bulava test that Russia admitted to.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Protector
I think it is a missile.

To explain where the missing fuselage (or third stage) is in the picture, it is either painted black or designed like a stealth missile. That would make it much more difficult to visualize at night.

The speed of the "blackhole" is incredible, but I have a thought on that too. If the missile did not use a common solid rocket fuel, it was probably a mixture of a fluid and a gas. If the fluid leaked out, then the gas chamber (typically compressed oxygen) burst, that would explain a very fast pressure wave that would blot out the middle of the vapor trail faster than it would normally dissipate.

Even if I'm slightly wrong, the evidence for a missile is substantial.


Here is the reason that IT IS NOT A MISSILE.

Click on this. Hit download on the right hand side and read it.
www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm

After you have read it thoroughly and checked out the facts, you should probably already be in a stage of questioning your assessment of it being a missile.

Here's a snippet from the article:

B. Specifications of the Bulava-class SLBM:
The “official characteristics as declared under START-2 Treaty3” of the “RSM-56” Bulava SLBM state that all 3 stages are fueled by solid propellant. This would rule out the possibility of the “ripples” being liquid or gas propellant particulate. It seems to only leave the possibility that the “ripples” could be smoke. Yet the proposed smoke is moving over 300m/s (over
3 www.astronautix.com...
twice the fastest recorded wind speed of 318mph) in the lower limit alone. One would presume that the smoke would defuse and dissipate in an easily observable rate- yet all accounts of the event in question indicate the “ripples” moved at a constant velocity while maintaining perfect geometric form.
C. The Speed of Sound at Different Altitudes:
The speed of sound varies in different layers of the atmosphere4:
The atmosphere is said to cease around 122km- the speed of sound becoming undefined in this region. The highest altitude for which there is a known speed of sound is around 122km, at 308m/s. Now, since there is no report of any “sonic booms” (or any other noise) associated with this event, if the “ripples” were smoke, they would have to occur above 122km. This raises the question, “how come people in northern Norway and Finland captured such clear photographs and videos, including many from cell phones, and no one in Sweden, Russia, or Estonia reported anything?” Perhaps weather could be attributed to the lack of a clear sky, but surely the entire region could not have been completely covered.
D. The General Behavior of a Body Re-Entering the Atmosphere:
As the missile's bus (the 3rd stage housing for all the warheads) re- entered the atmosphere, it was under the force of its thrusters (1 on the end and 3 or 4 on the sides), the Earth's gravitational field, and the resistive force of the atmosphere. The bus could be positioned, relative to the Earth's surface, in one of two ways:
1) pointing straight down or 2) at an angle
Yet, the white spiral is in the plane of the picture! If a broken side-thruster created it while the missile bus re-entered the atmosphere, the smoke should have been ejected in a fashion similar to the blue spiral. The evidence states that the
4 www.aerospaceweb.org...
missile would then have to traveling straight towards or away from the photographer in Skjervøy, which, if launched from the White Sea, would indicate a highly improbable missile trajectory. Now, in the either case of a normal re-entry, if one side thruster malfunctioned and was continuously firing, the missile would spin faster and faster under this constant angular force, until it reached a maximum. Furthermore, it would seem necessary that the maximum angular frequency of the missile be much greater than 1Hz. Yet, from all the available evidence, the source of the spiral begins spinning at ~1Hz and continues at this rate until it disappears fully, never increasing.
The data available thus far does not support the hypothesis that the spirals were caused by a malfunctioning missile's exhaust. The “ripples” in question are traveling extremely fast and are too geometrically perfect to be smoke. Also, the white “smoke exhaust” indicates a highly improbable re-entry trajectory and the angular frequency of the object does not change nor increase sufficiently above 1Hz. Whereas if a missile were to be under a constant angular force while re-entry, it would presumably rotate much faster than once every second. Finally, the lack of pressure waves or any other sound (a.k.a. “sonic booms”) and sightings outside of northern Norway and Finland further corrode the possibility that the spirals were caused by a broken missile re- entering the atmosphere.


This information is based on physics and solid research. If you were to do a follow up, you would be utterly convinced of the impossibility of the spiral being caused "only" by a missile. It is out of the question.

However, it is possible that a missile coupled with another technology could create this effect.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


*BZZT!* again, incorrect. It doesn't matter how many times you post that, it doesn't make it true.

ICBMs, especially modern ones, contain a liquid bus in the final stage for the advanced maneuvering. You see, once you light a solid engine, you can not turn it off. Maneuvering, like steering a car, requires periods of adjustment, and periods of no adjustment. That is why they have a liquid fuel bus, or even an entirely-liquid-fuelled third stage. The Bulava has, according to the Russians, the most advanced MIRV in the world, which is where the liquid fuel is used.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 

The article is based on hogwash, not physics

B. There are sources which specify the third stage as being liquid fueled. The third stage was in space, what does "wind speed" have to do with anything? 300m/s is very much less than typical rocket exhaust velocity. Solid propellant rocket exhaust velocity can be in the rage of 2.1 - 3.2 km/s. Liquid fueled can be between 1.7 and 4.5 km/s.

C. There is no sound in space. The third stage was in space. The majority of Scandinavia was covered in clouds but the spiral was seen from northern Sweden. To the east of the launch the sun would have been too high and the sky too bright for the spiral to be visible.

D: Who said anything about re-entry. Re-entry would have been over the other end of Siberia.

There are no "ripples". There is a widening spiral of effluent.





new topics
top topics
 
86
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join