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

Note:
tauristercus image is pretty much identical to that posted on godlikeproductions.com forum back in december by"Texas Uncensored":

see page 22 of 48: www.godlikeproductions.com...

image: www.godlikeproductions.com...

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by secretbear
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Question, why did you make this thread when you could have just posted in the other three threads where the sources of information pointed to the fact that this was nothing more than a failed missile test?

This is the death of ATS. Some people work really hard to expose the truth and when they do, another thread pops up like this one where everyone is suddenly "reset".

Believe in what you will, but this is the height of ignorance as far as I'm concerned.

You don't believe it's a missile because you don't see a failed one every day! It *HAS* to be a UFO!

Information please??? I need something that shows that you actually have an opinion that has been developed from research and facts. I never believed it was a missile from day one. I have seen too many launches and from the one's that I have seen, not a single one behaved in this fashion.

Also, according to this newscast by NBC, they outright claim that this was a "Never before seen" anomaly.
www.youtube.com...

You see, I'm not necessarily agreeing with the OP or even defending him. I've been on all of his threads, and I've seen things change dramatically from each one. But, if you're going to make an attack, then you should also be prepared to support the reason for your attack. So...lets see your reason.

And, I might want to add that there have been several other anomalies in this general area that equate to something being manipulated. All of these events were within weeks of each other.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

To me, this stuff is all indicative of tampering. To you, it may all be coincidence that many of these events happened concurrently, but, I'm a little more astute than that.

It's your perogative to read those threads with plenty of proof of prior knowledge of the missile tests. It's not my job to babysit you, read the threads yourself.

You should look into something called the "burden of truth". We have plenty of information suggesting this is a failed rocket test. Have you got any evidence of it being not? Until then don't even bother posting that you know much else, you're even too lazy to do your own research and asking me to do it for you. Information is out there, read it.

The only attack here is from you. Don't insult the intelligence of those who don't wish to believe the most crazy, sensationalist story. You've never seen a failed rocket test before so how would you know it *isn't* a failed rocket test?

It's a failed rocket test.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by secretbear]

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

 

Posted by you, in the 2nd spiral thread:

Thanks for keeping up the fight on this one. The sheer amount of lunacy people are spewing when there is such great evidence for this being just another failed Russian missile test is staggering. Now we have HAARP being mentioned? It's like these folks want to write their own adventure book and be part of it, all without any evidence.

Just another failed Russian missile test? In reference to the failed Bulava tests, I presume.

According to you, there's nothing extraordinairy about it.

And that's just the first post in your history.

You just admitted that it was something else than a Bulava yourself, in this thread.

So jeah, you definately changed your point of view, Dave.

EDIT: I have to retract that statement, you never exactly admitted it was something else in this thread, you just refer to it as Russian ICBM now, as if you never referred to the Bulava.

But still, the evidence brought up in the OP's 2 last threads, clearly shows that it was more than "just another failed Russian missile".

You have to admit at some point, in order to maintain any credibility.



[edit on 8-2-2010 by Point of No Return]

He's not worried about credibility. He's worried about the status of his "ATS crew" which is falling apart by the seams.

Nonetheless, the missile theory is a complete washout. It is almost amazing, if not miraculous, how the last thread served to bait the debunkers into eating crow on the current one. If the OP planned that, then he is a freekin' genius who deserves notable glory.

Nonetheless, the OP's work in all threads has been quite strong despite some fluctuations here and there; and, this particular one supports my initial theory about the sky spiral not being a missile. I cannot prove what it was, but, it certainly was not a missile by any stretch of the imagination. Its amazing to me how many people readily accepted that theory from the onset.

I swear, if there was a newscast stating that the sky was actually lime green (as opposed to blue) and they supported this thesis by falsifying scientific evidence, there would be a whole team of supportive debunkers dispatched to claim that yes; in fact, our current knowledge of the sky is as such and serves to create a clever illusion of a shimmering blue when in fact, our eyes are merely being "deceived" therefore; validating the "official claim" of the sky actually being "scientifically proven as" lime green.

Of course...there would be those of us who obviously wouldn't fall for such stupidity, but...It's not US that I'm referring to.

Ultimately, it would degrade into the insult game where the debunkers would begin calling those who still think the sky is blue, such classics as "sheeple," "conspiracy theorists," and nutjobs.


[edit on 8-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

thank you dear for your most interesting and amazing informational posts. I am just an everyday person, your calculations far exceed my abilities in math, therefore am left a little lost. However, I think a force field, as in tesla technology is being used here. A force field of some sort. Beam ME up Scottie.

There was a show of power here, and as no one at the peace talks jumped under the table I say it was a show of the USA power to shot down, or render the latest russian nuke technology impotent. This was planned from the start. Ask yourself if the USA thought there was danger the secret service would have allowed speaking at the conference. Someone would have grabbed president and left. There would have been a scramble for cover. There was none. No extra security detail or fuss at all.

As if to say you might as well disarm now because this technology is antiquated. Isn't it interesting that with in days USA lined up new talks with countries about rounding up and getting rid of the nukes.? Who ever it was that was showing the powers that be that if they shot something off it will just blow up at the pad and nuke whoever shots one off.

What ever it was it is also showing 3rd world powers, North Korea, Iran, etc. Even if you acquire nuke tech it will do you no good.

This also shows the behind the scenes coop between Russia and US forces. It took both powers the work out the timing.

Just my theory.
Just saying
Thanks

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


EM,

You keep posting that same analysis like it's the end all be all of this argument. It is completely false in its conclusions and presumptions and I've already recently addressed that in the other thread (part 1 of this series), although I don't expect you to come back with anything concrete. You'll just say Im attacking you or something.

But really, you have no leg to stand on EM. Your beliefs are based on wishful thinking, ignorance (and I mean that in the nicest way possible) and a false analysis. I'm sorry, but it's true. You'll disagree and say the same for me most likely, but I do know for a fact, that the evidence has always shown it to be a rocket and not anything else.

Your entire argument seems to be based on that damn paper you keep posting over and over again. Well, like others (and myself) have already pointed out, it's wrong at best. We've told you what's wrong with it and you still go on blindly believing that it proves it wasn't a missile... it proves nothing except that the author doesn't know what he's talking about. Now if you're able to come back and tell us why what we pointed out is not wrong and perhaps bolster the authors analysis, then please do.

Otherwise please stop posting it- you're misleading people.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by secretbear

Actually my man...YOU failed to read the threads. I have already provided the evidence against it being a missile...but since you're obviously not going to look for the evidence THAT ALREADY EXISTS ON THIS THREAD THAT I'VE PROVIDED...I'll provide it again. By the way...you should check the history of the thread before you type the keys and hit enter.

www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm

Yawn. There you go...Again. Hit download on the right hand side, and it should come right up for ya.

Its pretty cut and dry. JUST READ IT. And if you have disagreements with it, explain to me mathematically why you think that it is incorrect, and I will provide any EVIDENCE that you need to refute your claim.

But, as it were...this is what will happen.

You'll come back and claim again that I didn't provide evidence at all, and that theories such as these are "ridiculous," or, "Hogwash" as the last member attempted to describe it. You'll tell me that the PDF file is B.S. and that the science is false. You'll also tell me that the author isn't credible, and that his theories are insane, but, you won't have a valid reason as to why or you'll lack any technical ability to translate your theory into mathematics.

And ultimately... you'll actually get pissed (like you already are) that I haven't relented my position on the face value of your self professed "expertise" in this field.

But hey, that's not my problem. Its yours.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

EM,

You keep posting that same analysis like it's the end all be all of this argument. It is completely false in its conclusions and presumptions and I've already recently addressed that in the other thread (part 1 of this series), although I don't expect you to come back with anything concrete. You'll just say Im attacking you or something.

But really, you have no leg to stand on EM. Your beliefs are based on wishful thinking, ignorance (and I mean that in the nicest way possible) and a false analysis. I'm sorry, but it's true. You'll disagree and say the same for me most likely, but I do know for a fact, that the evidence has always shown it to be a rocket and not anything else.

Your entire argument seems to be based on that damn paper you keep posting over and over again. Well, like others (and myself) have already pointed out, it's wrong at best. We've told you what's wrong with it and you still go on blindly believing that it proves it wasn't a missile... it proves nothing except that the author doesn't know what he's talking about. Now if you're able to come back and tell us why what we pointed out is not wrong and perhaps bolster the authors analysis, then please do.

Otherwise please stop posting it- you're misleading people.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

Hey Photon...please show me where this man's calculation is incorrect. I'd like to know from a mathematical standpoint where he is flawed.

www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm

I'd love to hear your expert analysis of what makes this assessment inaccurate.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


EM,

I'm not here to serve you.

Your missing the point completely, once again. I've already posted in the other thread what's wrong with his analysis... The entire premise of his paper is based on incorrect presumptions and therefore his math doesn't matter. He offers 0 in the way of supporting data... However I don't actually believe that you could mathematically prove that he's right... and frankly I don't care

If you want to know what's wrong with his math, you can start with the last section where he goes over the sources of error.

Peace

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

Re-entry isn't even the issue, although, if you remember correctly...After the Russians admitted their "failed" missile situation, of course, this followed their initial DENIAL that it ever existed, they said that it was a failure due to re-entry

You're right, re-entry was not an issue but according to the article you linked (didn't you read it?) it was. The Russians did not say the failure was due to re-entry. They said there was a third stage failure.

Altitude, wind speed, and air pressure are some of the main components that you should be looking at here. And, its pretty much impossible for the missile exhaust to have been rotating faster than the fastest wind speed ever known to create perfect concentric circles. ITS IMPOSSIBLE PHAGE...IMPOSSIBLE.

Again, what does wind have do to with anything? The spiral occurred in space. A rotating object ejecting effluent creates a spiral. And quit yelling.

Plus, you've changed your views too often for me to give you any credence. I watched the OP manipulate you guys with facts and information that didn't add up.

The OP has not manipulated me. In fact the only thing I agree with is the location of the spiral and that it was created by the Bulava. I haven't really changed my views at all. My thoughts have been refined as more information came to light, but I thought from the beginning that the Bulava created the spiral. I still think that. Whether or not the spiral was related to the failure is still an open question but I think it was.

[edit on 2/8/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
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.

Oh and Phage. Either your ability to read is lacking or, your math is getting worse and worse. You see, its not that the missile exhaust goes 300 meters per second, but, its the fact that...on second thought..., lets play with that for a second. You're right Phage. It is standard for missile exhaust to always spew out exhaust at 300 meters per second. You win.

Here's the kicker though, and you really should have read the article thoroughly.

At that altitude, the missile exhaust would have had to have been going 300 m/s faster than the highest wind speed known on record of 318 mph. (That was in a tornado Phage...just a bit of trivia for ya.) Ouch.

Read it all without skimming. It will serve your case well if you know what you're talking about.


[edit on 8-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by PhotonEffect


What are your views on the points made in the OP of this particular thread, if I may ask, Photoneffect?

Why do you guys only respond to the article EM posted, but completely ignore the OP, while both posts seem to outline the impossibility of it being a missile?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

EM,

I'm not here to serve you.

Your missing the point completely, once again. I've already posted in the other thread what's wrong with his analysis... The entire premise of his paper is based on incorrect presumptions and therefore his math doesn't matter. He offers 0 in the way of supporting data... However I don't actually believe that you could mathematically prove that he's right... and frankly I don't care

If you want to know what's wrong with his math, you can start with the last section where he goes over the sources of error.

Peace

Yep...you lack the mathematical language to translate any opinion that you have against my non-admittance of a missile theory.

That's all I needed.

Oh, and here's where you admitted to not being able to translate his math. Without knowledge of what you're talking about mathematically, you have no ways of disputing this claim of a missile's capabilities at that altitude.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks...

We're done here youngster.



[edit on 8-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by Point of No Return


I've already posted what I thought, but perhaps you missed it.

post by PhotonEffect


With regards to EM - he keeps posting garbage as evidence. And in the OP's last thread he came in there guns a-blazin' claiming that his entire thread was essentially worthless because this topic had been done to death and that he didn't care to hear about it any longer... yet here he is still posting garbage.

I've been on him to provide something with value but he hasn't done that yet. Nothing but noise coming from him.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
Oh and Phage. Either your ability to read is lacking or, your math is getting worse and worse. You see, its not that the missile exhaust goes 300 meters per second, but, its the fact that...on second thought..., lets play with that for a second. You're right Phage. It is standard for missile exhaust to always spew out exhaust at 300 meters per second. You win.

Here's the kicker though, and you really should have read the article thoroughly.

At that altitude, the missile exhaust would have had to have been going 300 m/s faster than the highest wind speed known on record of 318 mph. (That was in a tornado Phage...just a bit of trivia for ya.)

Read it all without skimming. It will serve your case well if you know what you're talking about.

What are you talking about?
318miles per hour = 142 meters per second
142 m/s + 300 m/s = 442 m/s

I still have no idea what that has to do with anything since the spiral occurred in space but rocket exhaust velocity is measured in kilometers per second, not meters per second. Yes, much much faster than the highest wind speed ever recorded.

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

 

I've already posted what I thought, but perhaps you missed it.

post by PhotonEffect

 

With regards to EM - he keeps posting garbage as evidence. And in the OP's last thread he came in there guns a-blazin' claiming that his entire thread was essentially worthless because this topic had been done to death and that he didn't care to hear about it any longer... yet here he is still posting garbage.

I've been on him to provide something with value but he hasn't done that yet. Nothing but noise coming from him.

Double post

[edit on 8-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I did miss that.

As for the 2nd part of your post, the speeds you've come up with certainly seem to be out of the ordinary and I wonder why that may be... I'll have to take a closer look at it.

The most important part of his post.

Did you take a closer look at it? This is what it's about in this thread.

Phage any comments?

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
Oh and Phage. Either your ability to read is lacking or, your math is getting worse and worse. You see, its not that the missile exhaust goes 300 meters per second, but, its the fact that...on second thought..., lets play with that for a second. You're right Phage. It is standard for missile exhaust to always spew out exhaust at 300 meters per second. You win.

Here's the kicker though, and you really should have read the article thoroughly.

At that altitude, the missile exhaust would have had to have been going 300 m/s faster than the highest wind speed known on record of 318 mph. (That was in a tornado Phage...just a bit of trivia for ya.)

Read it all without skimming. It will serve your case well if you know what you're talking about.

What are you talking about?
318miles per hour = 142 meters per second
142 m/s + 300 m/s = 442 m/s

I still have no idea what that has to do with anything since the spiral occurred in space but rocket exhaust velocity is measured in kilometers per second, not meters per second. Yes, much much faster than the highest wind speed ever recorded.

Phage...this is what I'm talking about. I know you can read and comprehend this. I understand you have to save face in front of everyone, but, this is just bullheaded. Quit playing ignorant when the information is staring right at you in the face. I know that you're not lacking in the ability to understand this math, at least, I hope. If you are, then you need a refresher course.

I will post the text for you and for everyone to read, and then I will effectively eliminate the fact that you can hide and appear knowledgeable to those who don't check links or sources.

CONCLUSIONS:
f =1 Hz , then ∴ ∣v[low]∣ = 316.58m/s [13]
∴ ∣v[high]∣ = 17,074m/s [14]
Using relative proportions as they appear in PHOTO 1, the spiral's known (estimated) frequency of rotation (~1Hz) and the known geographical measurements of the terrain in PHOTO 1, we found a relative expression (Eq. 5) for the velocity of the spiral's “ripples”. Evaluating this expression for two limiting cases, (above the mountain and above the White Sea) we found the velocities in expressions [13] and [14].
Now we must take some extra information into account:
a)possible sources of error, b)the specifications of the Bulava-class SLBM, c)the speed of sound at different altitudes, and d)the general behavior of body re-entering the atmosphere.
A. Possible Sources of Error:
There are clear and distinct sources of error that must be addressed in this report. First and foremost, the measurements taken from the picture are rough at best and do not reflect any distortions caused by the lens and/or camera. Additionally, it was assumed that the distance to the spiral and mountain were straight lines and did not reflect the actual curvature of the Earth's surface. Using the known radius of the Earth, the distance to the White Sea (the upper limit), and some more trigonometry, it can be found that height of the spiral (Eq. 10) should be ~14km higher (~8.7%). This would only increase the velocity of the “ripples” slightly and thus can be ignored in light of the accuracy of the available data.
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.

For those who would like to read this article in its entirety, I've got it posted at least 5 times before this.

And here it is one more time:
www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm






[edit on 8-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by Point of No Return


Exactly, I still maintain an open mind where need be...

I'm not sure if the OP had provided how he came up with that 108km distance using GE. I know davesidious had asked him about that but not sure if the OP responded yet...

reply to post by Phage

The OP has not manipulated me. In fact the only thing I agree with is the location of the spiral and that it was created by the Bulava.

Are you again implying that the OP in his previous thread proved, or implied that the Bulava made the spiral?

This was the big conclusion from that thread:

Analysis indicates that contrary to "official explanations", the spiral event was not apparently triggered by a 3rd stage failure or malfunction and that the spiral event itself was not a random and unexpected side effect of the missile launch. The emerging conclusion is that the series of Bulava missile launches over the last few years and their significant "failure rates" may in fact be a cover for the testing and observation of either a radical new propulsion technology or for the testing and observation of a new defense technology.

I pointed out to you in that thread that the OP wasn't exactly saying a Bulava caused the spiral, you wouldn't respond.

Now he brings more evidence supporting that case and you just ignore it again.

reply to post by Phage
Hi Phage,
Since there were two sources of ejected material, would it not be fairly safe to presume that one of them was part of a malfunction? The Russians had issued a statement before admitting anything, that a spiral was a common result of a particular failing, called "Coning" It can happen in a design problem, or from a fuel leak other than the rear exhaust. Their statement admitting the failure of the Bulava, included that it "went off course" so presumably out of control, (that is to say that its flight surfaces no longer fully worked) I know this missile and its warheads are supposed to be manueverable, so the test may have been just for that purpose, and it went wrong, but we don't about that scenario. I'm satisfied that 9/12 was a Russian missile malfunction....or maybe a Chinese spy satellite launch! BTW for those who talk about non admission of the Russian test,(as in no test) they are not that secret,
www.barentsobserver.com...






[edit on 8-2-2010 by smurfy]