It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian Spiral event : Preliminary analysis

page: 1
99
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+67 more 
posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
On the morning of 4 June 2010, at approximately 5:50am Eastern Standard Time, many Australians living on the east coast were witness to an incredible display of lights in the pre-dawn sky. Such a display had never been witnessed before in Australian skies and was immediately compared by many to a similar display that had occurred almost exactly 6 months earlier and witnessed by many thousands of Norwegians. This Norwegian display quickly achieved world wide notoriety to become known as the famous (or infamous) Norway Spiral event. Now it seems that Australia can lay legitimate claim to a similar 'spiral event' of it's own.

In the Norway Spiral event, I created a number of threads

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

that I believe made an extremely strong case in linking the sky phenomena to that of a Russian military missile test of the Bulava series that had been launched just minutes prior to the spiral event being observed.
With the Australian Spiral event, I hope to in this thread to demonstrate that a similar strong link also exists between the launch of an American experimental Falcon 9 series rocket and the observation of this spiral phenomena approximately 1 hour post launch.


To establish the required link between the Falcon 9 rocket and the observed spiral event, we need to initially determine whether the rockets trajectory would even result in it crossing the Australian continent at any point within its orbit and if so, whether that trajectory passed within close proximity to the observed event.

We can start with the following statement:


The initial stages of the ascent appeared normal as the rocket climbed straight up and then arced away to the northeast on a trajectory tilted 34.5 degrees to the equator.

Source: news.cnet.com...

and attempt to construct a potential orbital path and observe any Australian interaction.


Using the supplied 34.5 degree launch angle data, we can extrapolate the following trajectory that the Falcon would be expected to have followed.




So far so good. But does the trajectory cross the Australian continent, and if so, how closely does it interact with the various witness locations along the east coast ? Lets rotate the globe and observe the trajectory.



As can be readily seen, the Falcon 9 trajectory does indeed pass through the center of the witness locations ... with approximately the same number of locations (yellow dots) north of the trajectory as well as south of the trajectory.


Also, in an earlier post, Chadwickus supplied some initial orbital parameter values:

i = 34.50°
Hp = 236.6 km
Ha = 273.3 km
P = 89.47 min

showing that at this point, the Falcon 9 had not yet achieved a perfectly circular orbit (based on Hp (height at perihelion) and Ha (height at aphelion) and that the initial orbital period was approximately 89 mins.

Now, the launch took place at 2:45pm EDT (US) which equates to 4:45am EDT (Aus). The east coast sightings took place approximately at 5:50am EDT (Aus) which is 65 mins after launch. This again indicates that the observers were seeing the Falcon 9 initiating an 'event'. The difference of 24 mins (89mins - 65 mins) would be the remaining time required for the completion of the remainder of the orbit from the east coast back to Cape Canaveral.



Having a potential trajectory crossing the east coast just where the majority of observations took place is good but to add strength to the hypothesis that the Falcon 9 and the event are indeed related, we need to be able to use eyewitness photos and/or videos and determine whether the directions that the observer took the image coincided with the trajectory. In other words, if the photo/video that was taken was in a completely different direction from that of the trajectory, then it would mean that the event was unrelated to the Falcon 9 and that the hypothesis was false.

Now with the Norway event, we had many pieces of imagery that contained very clear details of the event. This imagery was of value because it also contained many points of clear reference such as mountains, buildings, etc that could be readily located on Google Earth and helped to identify the observers geographical location with respect to the event. Using such information, it then proved to be a straightforward exercise to triangulate and plot the Russian missiles trajectory. It was such detail that conclusively linked the Norway event and the Russian missile launch together.
However, with the Australian event, even though we have a reasonable amount of photographic and/or video imagery, it has proven to be of very little assistance in helping to place the observers location geographically in relation to the event. The primary reason for this is due to the fact that the event occurred just over the east coast and the majority of images show no identifiable background details because the observers were essentially imaging the event over the Pacific ocean and consequently, no background details of note were captured in the images.

However, having said the above, I did manage through very careful scrutiny of the available imagery, to locate 2 videos and a set of photos that provided a minimum amount of information to allow me to determine the observers corresponding geographical location in Google Earth. This imagery came from Mt Coot-tha in Queensland; Burleigh Heights in Queensland and Coolangatta in Queensland.

We will now examine this imagery and ascertain whether the direction of capture was in the general direction of the Falcon 9's trajectory, and therefore strengthening the hypothesis that the Falcon 9 was responsible for the event.



The 1st imagery is a frame taken from a video that was shot near Coolangatta in Queensland. In my opinion it's a very close match and is in agreement with the audio comments made on the video by the observer when describing his location.




The 2nd imagery is a set of still photos taken from the general vicinity of Mt Coot-tha in Queensland. After much examination of the original photo and comparing it to the same area in Google Earth, it would appear that the closest location match for the set of still photos would be if they had been taken from the very popular tourist scenic lookout point atop Mt Coot-tha that provides a clear and unobstructed 360 degree panorama.




Before we look at the 3rd piece of video imagery, it's possible to link the Mt Coot-tha and Coolangatta observers and conclusively state that at the moment of their respective image captures, that they MUST have been looking in EXACTLY the same direction at EXACTLY the same moment of time. Look at the overall shape of the event in the following image and you can see that essentially they are identical.




Continued next post ...



+1 more 
posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Continued from previous post ...


Finally, we have the 3rd imagery which is a video recording made at Burleigh Heights in Queensland. Admitedly, this proved the hardest when attempting to locate the observers geographical position in Google Earth. Thankfully, however, careful examination of one of the frames from the video provides sufficient data points to succesfully determine the observers location.

From comments associated with the Youtube video, it was clearly established that the video had been shot along the Esplanade that runs parallel to the beach/ocean, so this thankfully restricted the area that I had to search and made it much easier to locate the observers location at the time.




Even though the video was very dark, I was still able to extract a key frame that gave me a number of reference points to use in my search.
Off primary importance were the unique double-lamp streetlight (A) and sets of outdoor trestle tables (C). Examining the entire Esplanade showed that that particular style of street light only occurred 3 times along the entire Esplanade and that the trestle table arrangement occurred only once on the Esplanade. Coupled with the other matching points (B), (D), (E) and (F) gave high confidence that this was the observers location when the video was shot.




Ok, so we have 3 observer locations that we have been able to place reasonably accurately and have been able to deduce the direction in which they were facing when taking the photos/videos. We now have to plot those locations and directions on to the east coast and see if we have an intersection with the Falcon 9's trajectory path as it crossed the east coast and headed in an easterly direction across the Pacific ocean.
As can be seen below, we do indeed have such a correspondence that even though not absolutely conclusive, does lend additional strength to and helps corroborate the initial hypothesis that the Falcon 9 was somehow directly responsible for the observed spiral event of that morning.





CONCLUSION

From the above, we can see that there is more than sufficient evidence to make a good case supporting the hypothesis that the Australian spiral event was triggered by the United States Falcon 9 rocket test as it passed over the east Australian coastline and out over the Pacific ocean.

In comparing the Australian spiral event to that of the earlier Norway spiral event, it's immediately obvious that the two phenomena, though separated by 6 months, were very similar in many details to be labeled and subsequently dismissed as mere coincidence. Up to the time of the Norway event, such a distinctive and unusual atmospheric event had never been previously observed and yet only a few months later, we see essentially the same event occurring once again.

In the Norway event, much effort was made by the media and authorities to dismiss this as nothing more than a fault or a fuel leak in the Russian missile that resulted in such a bizarre display. However, I showed in my Norway threads that such a simplistic explanation was not only extremely unlikely, but was almost impossible to explain from a physical point of view.

So if the Russian explanation fell far short of the truth, what possible explanation can be offered by the Americans to explain how the Falcon 9 could produce such a display ? We're told after all, that the entire test was a 100% success and that there were NO difficulties whatsoever and that the rocket performed beyond expectations.
We also can't fall back on the 'old excuse' that the rocket was venting fuel or performing a stage separation maneuver because firstly, the second stage engine had used up it's fuel and had shut down long before crossing the east coast and secondly, the payload remained attached at all times to the shutdown 2nd stage engine and never separated.

Therefore the only alternative explanation is that the event was a purposely timed and executed procedure ... but for purposes unknown. The conclusion is that regardless of the 'stated' fact that the Falcon 9 was carrying nothing more than a dummy payload, the actual truth may be that there was indeed an actual and 'live' payload package being lifted into low Earth orbit for testing purposes. If the Russians can keep Bulava payloads a secret, then so can the Americans with the Falcon 9 payload.

However, it is MY opinion that in both the Norway event and the Australian event, that both the Russians and Americans have developed and are in the process of testing some highly advanced and obviously secret technology that apparently can only be deployed and operated in low Earth orbit.

Whether this technology is military based and either offensive or defensive in nature, or whether
some form of new propulsion system ... only time will tell.


Note: As of this latest 'spiral event' most likely associated with the US space program ... all 3 major launch capable nations (Russia, China and the US) have now had reported spiral events ... makes you wonder, doesn't it ?


[edit on 7/6/10 by tauristercus]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I totally concur.

Btw, wow, nice work. And I was just about to go to bed..

[edit on 7-6-2010 by earth2]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


I'd rename this thread to:

Australian Spiral event : case closed

Excellent work!!


Big S+F for you.

Peace



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Absolutely awesome work man, it’s great to have people with time and know-how to do this kind of research.

I completely agree, Russia, China, and the US are testing new technology I am almost certain of this, million dollar question is what.

Weapons?
Environmental?
Communication?
Misc?

Time will tell...

I don’t mind admitting when I first saw the Norway spiral I was quietly excited that we might be witnessing contact, now after the Aussie spiral and this awesome analysis I feel allot more uneasy as I don’t trust my fellow humans to protect me, I think it likely that this is weaponry being developed to kill not protect.

At least the wars of the future will look cool even if im turned inside out...


[edit on 7-6-2010 by deenuu]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
The test was not "perfect". The goal was to reach orbit. That was done. However there was that pesky roll problem that set the second stage spinning.

The second stage began an initially slow roll midway through the burn that became more and more pronounced as the rocket climbed.


Musk said the second stage rolled more than expected and that engineers would look into the issue to make sure it was not an indicator of a more serious problem. But he said the roll did not affect the rocket's overall performance.

news.cnet.com...

The spiral is consistent with effluent being expelled by a spinning vehicle. This was the first orbital test of a new rocket, not the time to be trying out new military hardware.

Spinning rockets produce spirals. They have for a long time.

1986:

Descriptions of the object and its motion varied, but a general picture soon emerged. It was called, in turn, a pinpoint, a moving spiral, a glowing cloud, and a big ball of fire. In Houston, Don Stockbauer described an orangish nebulosity surrounded by an irregularly shaped white cloud elongated vertically, with a dim starlike nucleus. Brenda Newton of Rochester, New York, recalled: “It started to get bigger and it had a tail. By the time we got out of the truck, it had begun to spiral. It lasted for a few minutes, then became like a dim star and floated toward the west.”

www.csicop.org...

1988:


2006:



[edit on 6/7/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Great thread,,my only questions are.

Would it really travel fast enough,from launch, to go 3/4 of the way around earth in an hour?

Was it dangerous to launch a low orbit craft knowing it would cross over the whole of Australia and shouln't we have been warned?

[edit on 7-6-2010 by virgom129]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Tauristercus.....

I just love your work......great stuff mate!!!!


I am looking forward to finishing work & reading all that in great detail!

Further to Phage’s info regarding rocket / missile launch spiral phenomenon from times gone by, here is the info I posted during the weekend in Chadwickus epic spiral thread, as per the thread originally established by Univac500.

A rocket / missile launch spiral photographed on the 27th August 1988 is clearly evident.

As part of Univac500’s thread, Internos & I came up with further interesting info (I note Internos removed his photos when he left ATS).

I hope this is of interest!



Old Chinese UFO Magazine & “that” spiral.

Originally posted by univac500 on the 5th April 2010:

Recently, as I was strolling through one of Beijing's gigantic flea markets, I happened upon these old U.F.O. magazines.




"Searching For Flying Saucers"

This magazine was published in the city of Lanzhou in the province of Gansu. The prices of the magazines we see here range from 0.30 Yuan (July 1983) to 1.20 Yuan (March 1991).

In China, back in 1983, if you didn't want to spend your 0.30 Yuan on a U.F.O. magazine, that same 0.30 Yuan would have bought you a pack of smokes. The choice was yours, bribe your company leader with a pack of smokes or a U.F.O. magazine.

Let's examine the next magazine in some detail.



Inside first page, table of contents:



Some of the articles:



1) "Japanese pilot sees U.F.O."
2) "Types of U.F.O's"
3) "Looking for the footprints of the aliens"
4) "U.F.O's and power plants"

The next and final magazine in today's collection is from July 1990.



Now, I would like to draw your attention to the inside back cover.

What have we here? Where have I seen this before?





Translation (as best as I can do):

"These photos were taken August 27th 1988. (August 28th 9:00 - 9:05 PM Beijing Time) Long: 124 30 Lat: 49 50. These photos were taken around Dongbei, NeiMengGu (Inner Mongolia)."



So, there you have it, a short trip down memory lane with a look at U.F.O. magazines in China (and before the time when 'bar codes' would eventually spoil the cover of every magazine worldwide.


Subsequent to the above, Internos & I came up with the following info (I note Internos removed his photos when he left ATS):



Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not on the 5th April 2010:

The Jiuquan Space Launch Center could well be the source of that missile launch as shown in your magazine.

You might be able to track down some launch info





www.globalsecurity.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

MAP




Originally posted by internos on the 6th April 2010:

It has been posted several times here on ATS.

That video was originally submitted HERE
Title:
Unknown Object in P.D.R. CA
Description:


November 8,1997 An Unknown Object that flew over Toe`s Beach in Playa del Rey,CA. Notice the bright object right over it.


________________________________________

It was a Delta II launch.

On the evening of 1997 November 8, a Delta II rocket carrying five Iridium communications satellites lifted off from Space Launch Complex 2-West at Vandenberg AFB. The launch took place during evening twilight and the rocket climbed out of the Earth's shadow and into sunlight, creating a memorable display visible over a wide area. The webmaster recorded the event on film from Santa Ynez Peak in Santa Barbara County, California.
www.spacearchive.info...

The Delta II carries the Iridium 38, 39, 40, 41, and 43 satellites into orbit as its sunlit contrail is suspended in the dusk sky. The webmaster took this photo during the late portion of the first stage burn just before main engine cut-off (MECO). The bright white dot on the right is the planet Venus.

This image shows the sunlit contrail from the Delta II just after first stage main engine cut-off. Following MECO, the rocket dropped significantly in brightness and was difficult to see. The very faint white speck in the lower left may be the rocket following second stage ignition.
www.spacearchive.info...


Delta II Rocket Launch, Vandenberg AFB, CA
November 8, 1997, 17:35 PST

Exposure: 1/30 sec.
Film: K-Mart Imation ISO 400 color print
Lens: Tamaron 28mm-200mm f/3.5 at 28mm.
Location: Goleta, CA, 42 miles ESE of launch point.
The top frame shows the rocket's exhaust plume illuminated by the sun, about 20 minutes after sunset. Venus can be seen below the rocker, Jupiter is off to the lower left of the rocket. The bottom frame is a close up of the rocket approaching Jupiter. The exhaust plume is now in direct sunlight. Notice the difference between the white plume in the top frame and orange exhaust in the lower frame.

www.dosgatos.com...

I bet it has been some unforgettable spectacle



Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not


[edit on 7-6-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ockers' photos back up what your saying. He posted these images recently in the original thread. I hope Ocker doesn't mind me posting them here. All credit to him!


Originally posted by ocker
Hi guys
In the Images I am showing below you can clearly notice the roll that SpaceX boss Elon Musk was speaking about in a post i made yesterday.

The Images by frame clearly show the dramatic roll we have witnessed







Thanks

Ocker


The roll is pretty obvious! Case closed IMHO!

IRM

[edit on 7/6/10 by InfaRedMan]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Tauristercus, Quality it is, thanks mate . thats why ya gotta love this site

Still amazes me, how sooo many saw, and sooo many had different accounts

And is there any info of the rocket been spent when it reached the WA coast line, i do beleive it was the falcon, just wish to know what it may of looked like without the sun reflection in the night/morning sky

Cheers again guys for the hard work, and thats the lot of yas

Wal



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
tauristercus congratulations on the thread


Great information from the rest of the guys credit to you all

Thanks

Ocker



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by auswally

Still amazes me, how sooo many saw, and sooo many had different accounts



Perception is a funny thing isn't it. I'm sure that embellishment plays a part as well... but you cannot argue with solid research and evidence as shown in the Op.

Simply fantastic stuff. Makes me proud to be an ATS'er too!

IRM



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




The spiral is consistent with effluent being expelled by a spinning vehicle. This was the first orbital test of a new rocket, not the time to be trying out new military hardware.


The nominal burn time for the Falcon 9:
1st stage = 170 secs = 2 mins 50 secs
2nd stage = 345 secs = 5 mins 45 secs

Total burn: 8 mins 35 secs


Now, the east coast of Australia was crossed by the Falcon 9 approximately 65 mins after launch. This therefore begs the following 2 questions:

Why would mission control wait almost another hour
(65mins - 8mins 35 secs = 56 mins 25 secs)
before deciding to release what you label as 'effluent' (unspent fuel) ?

Why would mission control release this unspent fuel DIRECTLY OVER Coolangatta, which is a major Australian city in Queensland ... rather than wait a few more mins until the Falcon 9 was well and truly over the Pacific ocean ? Hmmm ... quite a blatant disregard for the population directly under the released 'effluent', wouldn't you say, Phage ?

I'll tell you what ... this 'effluent' release explanation for both the Norway and now the Australian spiral event is starting to wear thin



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Maybe...maybe not

Thanks for the encouragement as it never gets old


As for the data that you posted, obviously I must have missed that the 1st time it was posted but will most certainly have a good read of it later this evening ... definitely looks like some interesting stuff contained within .... thanks again !



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Why would mission control release this unspent fuel DIRECTLY OVER Coolangatta, which is a major Australian city in Queensland ... rather than wait a few more mins until the Falcon 9 was well and truly over the Pacific ocean ?


From the photos it looks like it was over the pacific and not over a populated area.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Hi mate I posted this.
Could you answer please...To me it means from a standing start that thing moves real fast...

Also I agree with the Why over Australia bit you just posted...

Great thread,,my only questions are.

Would it really travel fast enough,from launch, to go 3/4 of the way around earth in an hour?

Was it dangerous to launch a low orbit craft knowing it would cross over the whole of Australia and shouln't we have been warned?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I am joining your cult tauristercus. I will call on your for "debunking". lol



S&F for you!





[edit on 7-6-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Are they time stamps on the pics? If so is that like 18:53 as in 6.53 PM ?

Pardon my ignorance,



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Are they time stamps on the pics? If so is that like 18:53 as in 6.53 PM ?

Pardon my ignorance,


Virgom129.....

That would correlate with GMT (Greenwich Mean Time or Zulu Time) minus 5 hours for the time zone for the east coast of the USA.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Thanks mate but I checked, appears to be UTC time, whatever that is.




top topics



 
99
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join