Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

Originally posted by Crapsghetti
If it was Esciat, what does this imply? What is the significance of it not being a missle?

I'm really sorry but it implies absolutely NOTHING.
The reason being that there is now overwhelming, solid, proven and factual evidence absolutely negating the 'EISCAT did it' hypothesis.

If you haven't read my 3 part thread series clearly demonstrating such evidence, then please do so.
Then, to keep things in perspective, go ask Team EISCAT to show you their equivalent RIGOROUS, IN-DEPTH and DETAILED analysis.

Oh, wait ... sorry ... they don't have one !!!!!

ok people i think this here could be it The Experiment Projectile ! im not sure have not seen if there was a launch in Finland of the day of the Spiral event

www.space.fmi.fi...

www.space.fmi.fi...


this is what I think of the missile rocket

not the Russian rocket

read on folks on the description below
could this really be what was taken place >? of the spiral event !

please read real carefully

www.space.fmi.fi...

a snippet :: in the case that the ice particles get charged, an artificial PMSE (Polar mesospheric summer echo) type phenomen could be observed, which makes the experiment especially exciting!


www.space.fmi.fi...
the inner working of that rocket and the spinning table it is on


folks it interesting find and probably has nothing to do with the norway spiral at all

butt yeah theres a but....

this evidence show 2 things!

1 EISCAT has it own capability to launch it own experimental rocket s
! for it own testing
2 furthermore it closer to the white sea from that location

could the UHF dish also transmit with some kinda modification ?


pansy.nipr.ac.jp...


a little more info pansy.nipr.ac.jp...


noctilucent cloud picture

farm2.static.flickr.com...

now imagine that experimental rocket started spiraling releasing the water
and causing this effect

i also notice there is no record all for the whole year missing from march 2009 ( Rocket partial failure ) to Feb 2010 nothing

perfect for some secret activity ? i know conjuncture

i take a straw and drink your milkshake www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Wolfenz
ok people i think this here could be it The Experiment Projectile ! im not sure have not seen if there was a launch in Finland of the day of the Spiral event

www.space.fmi.fi...

www.space.fmi.fi...


this is what I think of the missile rocket

not the Russian rocket

I've just examined your links and while I understand your eagerness to find ANY evidence that would discredit the Russian Bulava missile scenario, I'm really sorry but the above certainly will NOT do it ... and again, I feel that you're desperately clutching at straws.

We only have to plot the 'water dropping' rocket experiment launched from Estrange (Sweden) onto Google Earth and compare it's visible location to that of the spirals visible location.
And unfortunately, no amount of wishing/hoping puts the Estrange rocket anywhere near the viewing corridor from Tromso to the spiral event.

Here you go, look for yourself ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/260af9d41f73.jpg[/atsimg]

As you can see, the apogee of the rocket and it's theoretical water release point are very distant from the event viewing corridor.


The other major problem you have is that the original launch on 12 March 2009, whilst successful, failed to deploy the water payload as stated here:

The NISSE experiment was partially successful, the water unfortunately
did not eject

www.space.fmi.fi...

And as far as I can determine, there have been no other launch attempts from that date to the current date:

One year after lift-off

It is already some way back in the past and the work the team members did for NISSE exponentially decreased. After the launch there was still no end for all the paper work; the team had to do a failure investigation followed by a report. Shortly after the final report was pending to be written for the European Space Acency. Additional outreach was done as well (see Publications). But what about our experiment today? Will NISSE see space for a second time?
The payload is still available and in a good condition – so in principle it could fly again

As far as the following is concerned:

wolfenz explain !! the above ! could it be possible that Finland is the transmitter with modification instead of tromso or maybe with tromso and the other 2 are helping out if the location of that spiral is in fact in the white sea

Im ready for the abuse of my ideas and theroys and conjuncture

well i can take my headset and make that into a microphone cant i ?


why not a receiver to a transmitter as tromso UHF Steerable dish can do both the one in finland could i would think with some modification as they are identical make minus the transmitter ill look further to find that out

Complete conjecture and supposition on your part ... and you've supplied NO supporting evidence whatsoever.

reply to post by tauristercus



pretty fast on that reply 37 minutes or did you thought the same thing ?

or is there a team working with you ?

it all conjuncture but remember this it might trigger something the viewer this thread has not noticed before


www.sgo.fi...

Could somebody please list the members of Team Eiscat?

I posted Eiscat-related information in this thread - does that mean I am on Team Eiscat too?

Also who is the individual who started referring to ATS members as 'Team Eiscat?'

*Thanks.

Originally posted by Wolfenz
reply to post by tauristercus

 

pretty fast on that reply 37 minutes or did you thought the same thing ?

or is there a team working with you ?

it all conjuncture but remember this it might trigger something the viewer this thread has not noticed before


www.sgo.fi...

37 mins was more than sufficient time to read through your links and very quickly isolate the pertinent points of interest ... experiment launched ... experiment failed ... no further launches since - what else is there to say ?

As for your above link ... what's it's relevance ?

Sodankylä site is one of the receiving sites of the incoherent scatter radar system ... and thats ALL it is. It's job is to RECEIVE !

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Could somebody please list the members of Team Eiscat?

I posted Eiscat-related information in this thread - does that mean I am on Team Eiscat too?

Also who is the individual who started referring to ATS members as 'Team Eiscat?'

*Thanks.

I was the one to start referring to the main proponents behind the "EISCAT did it' hypothesis as 'Team EISCAT'. This was in NO manner or intent meant to be used as a derogatory or insulting term of address.
During these many pages and posts, it's become obvious that there are 3 primary supporters, and therefore primary posters, of this hypothesis ... EvolvedMinistry, Wolfenz and Donny 4 Million ... and it just became natural (at least to me) to refer to them collectively as Team EISCAT.
Looking at it from that perspective, I guess that davesidious and myself could rightly be referred to as Team Bulava

Originally posted by tauristercus
I guess that davesidious and myself could rightly be referred to as Team Bulava

How about Team Rocket?

That has a nicer ring to it.

Anyhow, at least we now know the teams and who is on them.

reply to post by tauristercus


Team Bulava FTW!

Nicely done, Taur. More debunking that will most likely be misinterpreted as part of a grander, more perverse conspiracy, or will simply be ignored as its factual objectivity is not as fun as simply clutching at the fantastic straws of EISCAT.

Originally posted by davesidious
More debunking that will most likely be misinterpreted as part of a grander, more perverse conspiracy, or will simply be ignored as its factual objectivity is not as fun as simply clutching at the fantastic straws of EISCAT.

Why do you think it will be misinterpreted so?


Or are you trying to provoke team EISCAT into making an off-topic post?



*If so, you must not realize that your behavior reflects poorly on the rest of Team Rocket.

There is no need for taunting (Although, I'm sure you can justify it to yourself somehow).

reply to post by Exuberant1


I'm just going on past experience. That's why this thread is still having people post to it, as the evidence for the phenomenon being caused by a Bulava missile is very strong, and yet the evidence for it being caused, even in part, by EISCAT is exactly nil. The only thing out of team EISCAT is links to unrelated documents and phenomena, somehow tied to the spiral simply because they exist, and not because they have been demonstrated as being involved.

It's a sorry state of affairs. I'm not taunting, simply trying to pre-empt the incessant flow of nonsense.

reply to post by tauristercus


Tauristercus, I hope now that we can talk without the need for insults. You have gained my respect and I hope that I have gained yours.

Before this gets started, I have tried to contact the guy from Harvard that Photon wanted me to speak with. I sent him the information that began this thread, and I have received nothing back from this guy. I specifically showed him the findings of his former alumns in 1996, made my case by telling him about my father's background and sent him the information about my father's service as an industrial engineer for The Naval Weapons Support Center (CRANE), and I have gotten back zero response. When someone avoids a scenario after credentials have been specifically laid out, I begin to have some questions.

Now, If the spiral was seen in space Tauristercus, then the visual effect could easily be skewed. I'm trying to determine how you can come up with exact theories on the location when the spiral was seen in Norway, not Russia. I did a little work on Google Earth and it would seem utterly impossible that someone from Norway was watching a spiral event that occurred on Russia soil, especially where you say that it occurred, in the Kachatka Peninsula. Is it possible that you looked up the closest Russian base and melded your theory as such? We're talking about so many miles of distance with MULTIPLE Mountains blocking the view, that it is almost impossible to make a visual assessment from an area you are not familiar with. I can't see Ohio skies from Indiana, so how did Norwegians see Russian skies from Norway??? And, by the way, I'm genuinely trying to understand your theories, so, please...don't chastise me on this.

Now, you say that Eiscat couldn't send electromagnetic radiation through mountains. This is totally and completely inaccurate. Longwave radiation is not limited by mountain peaks and Eiscat, and any facility like it, directs the pulse at the ionosphere, where the info gets redirected, they don't try to aim and shoot through mountains. That's a ridiculous assessment.

Longwave radiation exists everywhere and technically moves THROUGH mountains due to the gravitational pull of the earth. Anything from any location will fall to the center due to gravity. Also, let me mind you that the more powerful Russian Sura is within the GENERAL area, (But not really) of your pinpointed location, and is a hell of a lot closer than Norway. Energy can be directed anywhere.

I have looked now, through all three of your threads, which again, came up with three different conclusions. You've come up with SEVERAL locations on where you believe that the spiral was witnessed which also leads me to the conclusion that the spiral itself really cannot be pinpointed, especially if it actually occurred in space. I am not on team Eiscat or team missile, or anything else. I am on team truth. Just recently, Einstein's theory of relativity was just put into question...serious question. So, where people have used SCIENCE to explain certain phenomenon, they have obviously failed repeatedly. And Einstein was a helluva lot smarter than any of us.

I have watched several dismiss the findings of Harvard researchers who logged what they witnessed while Eiscat was active. I have no reason at all to question the findings of one of the best research facilities on earth, especially when their findings was not biased in any aspect and was done years before the Norway event. They turned on the heater, and then they recorded what they witnessed. Yet, everyone dismisses this as if it never happened. That is a failure, in my opinion, to amass past and available research which is part of the scientific method.

Now, since none of us were in Norway, you have based your research on camera angles and views that were provided by the media and youtube. The media has also provided camera views of UFO's which get dismissed everyday, very much like the tetrahedron that was above the Kremlin on the same day of the Spiral. If we can't use video footage to prove that, then how can we use it to prove your theory? And again, if it occurred in SPACE, then where is the accuracy in your assessments? People were seeing this spiral in the exact same way no matter which location that they were at. It was literally 3 dimensional and lacked an apparent point of origin.

There have been NO videos that have come forward at all of a missile being shot up in the air on that day. I cannot rule out the idea of this missile being there on that alone, but, without exact empirical evidence of a missile actually going up into the atmosphere, I cannot give credence to it either. The blue plume could have just as easily have been created by electromagnetic radiation. OR BOTH.

So...this can, and probably will go on and on. But, the only reason why we ever accepted a missile theory in the first place was because Russian authorities claimed it after they denied it. So...which story am I supposed to believe? The one where they said, "No we didn't do it." Or the one that says, yes, "That was us." Either way, it seems like a dubious endeavor. If I lie to you one minute while looking you in the eye, are you going to believe me the next minute when I finally divulge the truth? You'd be a fool if you did.

If it hadn't been shrouded in a lie from the very beginning, it would be much easier to swallow. Plus, a spiral of this magnitude has never been seen before and to date, there have only been two. Especially since it lasted 12 minutes. That's an awful lot of time for a missile.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Did you even bother to read his post? He NEVER said the spiral was over the Kamchatka peninsula, only that the missile's trajectory put it squarely on a course to said peninsula.

The reason it wasn't seen from Russia could very be that the parts of Russia near to the missile launch, and its subsequent route, are sparsely-inhabited, not to mention the sun would have also risen in Russia (whereas Norway is on the far western edge of that part of Europe, and so has the latest sun rise) making the phenomenon very difficult (or even impossible) to spot.

What do you mean by "longwave radiation"? Low frequency radio waves? They can only penetrate water up to 200m. It doesn't "technically", or even "actually" move through mountains.

The location of the spiral has been pinpointed. Yes, it was viewed from different angles, but thanks to that, triangulating those locations, as Taur has already done, he got a good fix on its position. What you believe, at this stage, is irrelevant, as Taur has already shown where the spiral was. Whether you believe it or not is up to you - if you don't, however, and claim to be on "Team Truth", please show us, explicitly, how Taur is wrong.

It wasn't shrouded in a lie from the very beginning. Russia warned shipping they were to launch a missile, then at the correlating time we saw a phenomena that could accurately be explained by a failed missile. You don't have to see the missile being launched, or shake the hand of the sub captain, to know that explanation holds water. The other explanations require massive leaps of faith to join the dots. The Bulava theory most certainly doesn't.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Could somebody please list the members of Team Eiscat?

I posted Eiscat-related information in this thread - does that mean I am on Team Eiscat too?

Also who is the individual who started referring to ATS members as 'Team Eiscat?'

*Thanks.

I wanted to welcome you to the thread. Although I'm really on no TEAM, if there was a team, it would be called team truth. I support and respect everyone on this thread equally because they have taken the time to post their opinions here.

I am in quite a bit of agreement with wolf, and donnie, but I have seen evidence from Photon and Tauristercus that I have found equally as interesting. There are quite a few things that I still find very hard to swallow from their side, but, it does not take away from their effort.

The biggest problem that I have up to date with much of their findings is the fact that Tauristercus has posted 3 different threads with three different results. In the scientific community, without positive and repeated replication of an experiment with the same results, a new hypothesis needs to be formulated. Therefore, whatever findings have occurred without replication, needs to be dismissed.

We have a very damning statement from Harvard research that NASA has released which states that in 1996, Spiral formations were formed from the ionosphere when it was heated by Eiscat. My assessment is this, it has been 14 years since they observed and recorded these findings, therefore they have made technological improvements that would indicate that they could create a perfect spiral.

Here is that evidence:
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Now, since these findings were done in 1996, they lack any bias in the current argument that is taking place. This evidence exists despite the theories that are being proposed. Whether it was done by a missile or done by Eiscat, HAARP, Sura, or any one of the several facilities that can manipulate the ionosphere, there is historical evidence for spiral creation by electromagnetic radiation.

The fact is, there has been no evidence, other than a blue trail that indicates that a missile was ever fired. Despite the fact that there are multiple camera angles that show the spiral, there are none that show a launched missile of any variety. Secondly, Tauristercus's findings in his third thread states that the spiral could not have been caused by a missile failing in the 3rd stage. Also, Eiscat was set to perform the Tequila sunrise which was scheduled on the same day, and same time as the supposed missile launch. In fact, it was already on during that morning.

So, when all of the information is put together, things would indicate that Eiscat or Sura, played a role. Now, it could have been a combination of both, or it could have been some radical new technology. Either way, I find it to be a dubious claim that Russia would launch a missile the same day that Obama was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. This could easily be considered and act of war. Also, given the fact that Russia denied any involvement initially, I am very hard pressed to believe their recantation. Which story is the lie and which one is the truth? It would seem to me that if an unknown spiral appeared out of nowhere that no one had an explanation to, international pressure might cause someone to take responsibility, even if there was no responsibility to be taken. And, we've seen things like that in history before. I am never quick to believe an official story, especially if it starts off with so many holes.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Davesidious's behavior has been so poor that I finally put him on ignore 3 threads ago. Consequently, in the time that I have been on ATS, I have used the ignore button once. Thanks for calling him out on that.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

What possible value or importance could 50 year old RADIO knowledge have in today's hi-tech world ? Very little truthfully as what you learned then, and by today's technological standards, is essentially archaic, primitive and rudimentary.
Unless you're telling us that EISCAT is using hardware based upon 60's valve (tube) and transistor technology ?




[edit on 28/2/10 by tauristercus]

Ahem...Nikola Tesla was born in 1856 and died in 1943. Much of his work has influenced those in radio and electricity up to the present day. The man was a genius of epic proportions and everything that Eiscat is based off of was directly influenced from him. His work is hardly archaic, and if it is, you could consider HAARP, EIscat, and Sura to be pieces of junk history. However, if this is the case, why haven't we replaced them?

en.wikipedia.org...

By the way, did you know that HAARP's creator walked away from HAARP when it was completely bought out from under him? The reason that he walked away from it was because the military sought to weaponize it. His son is quite outspoken about HAARP's current usage.

en.wikipedia.org...

And...you might want to see what all the patents that he had said about HAARP's capabilities. There are those that say that HAARP cannot enhance the weather. However, according to the CREATOR of the system, that is one of its many purposes. There are those who say that it cannot shoot down missiles, however again, according to the creator, this is also one of its many purposes. Now...personally, I am going to believe the creator of the system which is now currently owned by the government and kept away from the general public, over a bunch of people on ATS who argue conjecture and opinion about stuff that they have not researched. HAARP, Eiscat, Sura and the such, are all WEAPONS, otherwise it would not be military owned. If it was just a case where people and the general public go there and do research, I would be able to walk in at any time, plug in, and zap the sky like those guys from Harvard.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


That is conjecture about Eastlund. Eastlund wasn't even the creator, he just held a patent relating to HAARP. Patents don't mean anything, as they are not necessarily describing a system that is based on them. They themselves are conjectural in nature.

Weaponised? No. The military involvement with HAARP is due to its work relating to communications, not weapons. The military values communications just as much as weaponry, as without communication, weapons are useless.

But as I'm on ignore for pointing out some more of your baseless-conjecture-masquerading-as-solid-fact, you won't read this.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Now, If the spiral was seen in space Tauristercus, then the visual effect could easily be skewed. I'm trying to determine how you can come up with exact theories on the location when the spiral was seen in Norway, not Russia. I did a little work on Google Earth and it would seem utterly impossible that someone from Norway was watching a spiral event that occurred on Russia soil ...

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear in my analysis threads.
The event occurred in Russian airspace and not on Russian soil (i.e. physically on the ground). And because it occurred just above the top of the atmosphere in space, that means that it was easily viewable (under the right conditions) by observers in neighbouring countries even though the launch point of the Bulava, because of the distance between Norway and the White Sea, would be way below their personal horizon ... but once the Bulava climbed high enough, it would appear above the observers horizon. Thats why observers in Norway were able to see the upper part of the exhaust plume very clearly.

... especially where you say that it occurred, in the Kachatka Peninsula.

Again, sorry for the confusion.
One of the compelling reasons that we have for a Russian missile being involved is because of the well known and publicized facts that the Russians have a missile destination point located in the middle of the Kamchatka Peninsula (Google it) which they use (have used) for the majority of their missile tests. They use this location because it's 5000+ kms away from the White Sea and the entire flight path between these 2 points never leaves Russian airspace ... so it's ideal from a safety point of view because if a missile malfunctions somewhere in between and drops out of the sky, the worst that will happen is that it drops on some Russians house and not say, a Chinese city !
So after having determined the path of the spiral event across the White Sea and finding that EACH individual point of the spiral event fitted PERFECTLY onto a short trajectory starting at the exhaust plume .. you can imagine how thrilled I was when I found that by extending that section of trajectory I'd found over the White Sea and superimposing it on to a Great Circle path, that this extended trajectory went straight as an arrow and bullseyed smack in the middle of the Kamchatka test area. This finding alone virtually confirms that a missile was involved because it followed EXACTLY the protocol that the Russians use in their missile tests.
So at one end of the trajectory that I had found was the clearly obvious rocket produced exhaust plume ... and at the other end of the trajectory was the Kamchatka missile crash point ... producing a perfectly unambiguous missile trajectory from start to finish. This is one major reason why we're all convinced that we don't need to drag in strange and unknown technology because this entire trajectory is so simply and easily explainable by assuming that it's the path that the Bulava was programmed to follow. In fact, do a quick online and you'll find that previous Bulava missile tests were aimed to impact at Kamchatka.

Now, you say that Eiscat couldn't send electromagnetic radiation through mountains. This is totally and completely inaccurate. Longwave radiation is not limited by mountain peaks and Eiscat, and any facility like it, directs the pulse at the ionosphere, where the info gets redirected, they don't try to aim and shoot through mountains. That's a ridiculous assessment.

Longwave radiation exists everywhere and technically moves THROUGH mountains due to the gravitational pull of the earth. Anything from any location will fall to the center due to gravity. Also, let me mind you that the more powerful Russian Sura is within the GENERAL area, (But not really) of your pinpointed location, and is a hell of a lot closer than Norway. Energy can be directed anywhere.

I'm not disputing the fact that longwave EM is used for military communications because of it's ability to penetrate barriers but the point you've missed is that the longer the wavelength (and therefore the longer the frequency), the less energy the EM wave contains. This is due to the fact that the energy contained in an EM wave is directly proportional to its frequency based on this equation:
E = h x f (where h is a constant)
and also on
f = c / λ (where f is frequency; c is speed of light; λ = wavelength

Combining and rearranging the above, we get the equivalent equation:

E = (h x c) / λ

which basically tells us that the energy of the EM wave is inversely proportional to the wavelength of the EM wave.

So if the wavelength increases, it follows that the resulting energy carried by the wave MUST DECREASE.

This is my long-winded way of saying that there would have been insufficient energy to transmit to the electrons in the ionosphere to generate any kind of high intensity plasma effect.

And anyway, it's clearly stated that EISCAT/HAARP use HF (high frequency) EM waves to pump the ionosphere. High frequency immediately tells us that they're using SHORT wavelengths ... NOT long wavelengths.

You've come up with SEVERAL locations on where you believe that the spiral was witnessed which also leads me to the conclusion that the spiral itself really cannot be pinpointed, especially if it actually occurred in space.

Actually, the exact opposite is true.
Originally I only had access to 4 observer locations and I used these 4 to 'triangulate' the path that the spiral event took. I eventually found another 4 different observer locations and when I used these, I found that they fitted my original event path exactly ... which confirmed my original estimate that the spiral event took place DIRECTLY OVER the White Sea area ... again, yet another excellent confirmation that the Russians, and a missile, were involved.

Now, since none of us were in Norway, you have based your research on camera angles and views that were provided by the media and youtube.

If we can't use video footage to prove that, then how can we use it to prove your theory? And again, if it occurred in SPACE, then where is the accuracy in your assessments? People were seeing this spiral in the exact same way no matter which location that they were at. It was literally 3 dimensional and lacked an apparent point of origin.

The only good video footage we have was taken in Tromso and I used individual frames from that footage to clearly, very carefully and definitively identify the direction that the Tromso observer was seeing the spiral event. Similarly, using a large number of photos and again being very, very careful, I successfully located the viewing angle of ALL those individual observers.

Armed with the individual observer viewing directions/angles, it was then only necessary to use very simple trigonometry to pinpoint the locations of different parts of the event such as the exhaust plume, the blue spiral, the main spiral and the eventual dissipation phase.
Once having pinpointed the probable event location, and having distance info available ... again simple trigonometry allowed the calculation of altitude and size info.
Nothing tricky or magical ... just the use of available and CONFIRMABLE base data and a bit of maths.
All of my work can be CONFIRMED independently and is REPRODUCIBLE.

There have been NO videos that have come forward at all of a missile being shot up in the air on that day.

No videos but plenty of evidence ... the advanced launch warnings given ... the exhaust plume ... the trajectory ... Great Circle path ... Kamchatka.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

The fact is, there has been no evidence, other than a blue trail that indicates that a missile was ever fired. Despite the fact that there are multiple camera angles that show the spiral, there are none that show a launched missile of any variety.

Non of the observers could see the actual Bulava launch because with a distance of 800+ kms separating them from the launch area, the initial stages of the launch would have occurred BELOW their visible horizons ... and therefore not visible.
It only became visible that a launch had taken place AFTER the Bulava had gained sufficient altitude to rise above the observers horizon.

And the clear view of what is easily identifiable as a rocket exhaust plume is clearly seen rising ABOVE the horizon. There have been literally 1000's of rocket/missile launches over the decades and we have NO probs in identifying a rocket exhaust trail in the atmosphere when we see one !

Secondly, Tauristercus's findings in his third thread states that the spiral could not have been caused by a missile failing in the 3rd stage.

Again, perhaps I haven't made myself and my opinion clear enough ... as there still seems to be much confusion as to what I'm actually saying.

Let me reiterate once again ...

I firmly believe that the spiral event was the end result of a Russian Bulava missile launch on that morning ... just way, way too much evidence NOT to believe it.

I firmly believe that the spiral event path across the sky was a direct result of the Bulavas programmed flight trajectory ... as I have demonstrated in other posts.

However, I do NOT believe that the spiral event was the direct result of a failure of the 3rd stage ... whether mechanical, leaking propellant, etc.
I have shown (in my threads) just why it's physically impossible to produce the observed spiral effects accidently.

I firmly believe that the purpose of the Bulava test that morning was NOT to test the missile or its engines BUT rather to put some new (and unknown) technology into low orbit just above the top of the atmosphere and to test this new technology.
If, as has been shown, that the spiral effects could NOT be produced accidently, then logic dictates that the spiral effects were produced deliberately ... and if produced deliberately, then this was the true purpose for the launch.

Also, this explains why the missile was not seen to crash or self-destruct. Once the new technology test was completed and turned off, the missile continued along its programmed trajectory to impact eventually in Kamchatka ... as it was designed and planned to do.

These are some interesting videos of SLBM launches- (simulations)

In the first I would ask that you pay attention to the "payload third stage ignition and burn" and the color of the exhaust in this stage--

Then I would ask you to pay special attention to what happens during the "Payload ACS Orientation" right after 3rd stage ignition--

There appear to be 4 thrusters, one on each side and opposite each other that are used to reorient the attitude of the bus-- it almost looks as if this reorienting process requires that the bus be put it into a partial spin... It also seems to be a very tricky maneuver that if one or more of the thrusters misfire at any point a resulting full spin of the bus could occur--- This spin coupled with the spewing of effluent or gas could create a spiral...



But here is something that's more revealing...

This is a must watch

** Forward to 3:10 mark**

**Watch closely what happens at 3:53 mark**



Now I know this wasn't a Bulava (it was a minuteman), but never the less I wonder if this does provide some clues as to what causes the blueish exhaust and how a spiral can be created when the reentry vehicle is released and its spin gas generators fire up...

Does the Bulava utilize any of these features?

Lets take a quick look again at a one of the ways in which these types of rockets try to obtain attitude control

Spin Stabilization

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

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm open to hear any thoughts from either side

[edit on 1-3-2010 by PhotonEffect]