Chinese Sky Spiral 1981

filipz
reply to post by skuly

 

The Norway spiral has nothing to do with aliens, failed rocket or any UFO phenomena. The Norway spiral was generated by a HAARP like facitity near the town Tromso /where the spiral was observed/.....

How would such an explanation account for the advance warning from Moscow of the missile test? Or that all eyewitness accounts showed line-of-sight towards a region over the Barents Sea instead of converging near this supposed facility.

Your reference to spiral ionospheric effects is interesting, so where are the earlier pictures of that??

AbleEndangered
What if: Its been happening before Missile Technology?

All kinds of spirals in cave art

gave you a star for taking the words right out of my mind *

McGinty
Great find, S&F
[Snipped quote-in-quote. JM]

Striking resemblance to this ancient carving (sorry, but i can't for the life of me remember where i found the pic, or where the carving is)

I did a thread about the spiral a few years back

Is the Norway Spiral in fact the Serpent Rope ?

That carving is in New Mexico. It's one of the Mogollon petroglyphs. You can find the above image and other petroglyphs on this page at the Petroglyphs .us website.

Regarding ancient carvings/drawings of spirals and the current discussion of spirals in the sky: I agree that what the ancients depicted in repsect of spirals does not have to represent any aerial-based phenomena. In some cases they could simply be depicting whirlpools (ie in water) or coiled snakes, in others the images may be symbolic. And, spirals are fascinating. Probably even many modern-day children have drawn them; that doesn't imply they've seen such things in the sky.

JustMike

McGinty
Great find, S&F
[Snipped quote-in-quote. JM]

Striking resemblance to this ancient carving (sorry, but i can't for the life of me remember where i found the pic, or where the carving is)

I did a thread about the spiral a few years back

Is the Norway Spiral in fact the Serpent Rope ?

That carving is in New Mexico. It's one of the Mogollon petroglyphs. You can find the above image and other petroglyphs on this page at the Petroglyphs .us website.

Regarding ancient carvings/drawings of spirals and the current discussion of spirals in the sky: I agree that what the ancients depicted in repsect of spirals does not have to represent any aerial-based phenomena. In some cases they could simply be depicting whirlpools (ie in water) or coiled snakes, in others the images may be symbolic. And, spirals are fascinating. Probably even many modern-day children have drawn them; that doesn't imply they've seen such things in the sky.

edit on 27/9/13 by JustMike because: (no reason given)

What i always found eerie was how this carving relates to the movie Donnie Darko:

The weird bunny head, the spiral and the hand:





The Donnie Darko bunny mask:







The Donnie Darko hand:





And in the background of this cartoon portraying the movie we see the giant spiral in the sky - a worm hole used for time-travel (or inter-dimensional travel depending upon how you interpret the movie:



You don't need to tell me that making a connection between a cult movie and this ancient carving is pretty cookie, but it's there nonetheless - at least superficially.

Who's to say that the filmmaker didn't see this carving himself and used these symbols? But if not it's mighty peculiar.

I don't know how much weight you can give a spiral symbol. Spiral symbols are one of the most common symbols in the world, and they mean all kinds of things, including nothing. Sometimes it's just a cool and interesting decoration.

reply to post by JimOberg

These high-altitude spirals are important phenomena and have been reported around the planet since the early 1960s. I've been collecting information on them for a very long time

'xcuse my reading between the lines...but this sounds like you don't think this "phenomenon" is just failed rockets ?

I'm all ears....

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by JimOberg

 

These high-altitude spirals are important phenomena and have been reported around the planet since the early 1960s. I've been collecting information on them for a very long time

'xcuse my reading between the lines...but this sounds like you don't think this "phenomenon" is just failed rockets ?

I'm all ears....

Right you are... but recall my earlier post:

There are several different reasons why rockets spin [technically, 'roll' along their thrust vector], especially late in ascent. The rarest is when they actually tumble out of control. For ICBM tests, a spin usually occurs for several seconds just prior to MIRV release [eg, June 2012 'mideast' spiral, actually an announced Kapustin Yar missile test]. Solid-fuel ICBMs launched on less-than-maximum-range test flights must 'waste' excess thrust [you can't throttle or terminate early a solid fuel motor] or else overshoot their aim points, and usually do that by opening opposite side doors in the thrust chamber while rolling to cancel any course disturbances [eg Norway -- a missile test pre-warned with a NOTAMS alert -- you can see the TWIN nested spiral and how it starts simo sharply, then at the end stops sharply, creating the expanding black circle effect]. Once in orbit, discarded rocket stages that slowly tumble can spray excess fuel like a rotating lawn sprinkler. Descriptions, drawings, and photographs of all these different types of sky spirals go back about half a century.

These rare but spectacular events can alert outside observers to missile/space events whose owners want secrecy, or sometimes don't even know all about unintended activities thereof, themselves. Best example -- Russia's wave of crescent UFOs from 1967-8 that tantalized world ufologists, but terrified Soviet military commanders because they hadn't realized so MANY eyewitnesses would publish so MANY details about their top secret [and illegal] space-to-ground nuclear sneak-attack warhead tests.

Secondly, these well-documented events provide unique calibration experiments, serendipitously, for eyewitness testimony of what really look like UFOs, but aren't really.

Phage
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

Not a failed launch, just a spinning booster and the right lighting conditions.
Here's one from Australia.

www.redorbit.com...

Just one video showing a missile launch ending in such a areal display would end all debate.

Debate over then?

edit on 9/26/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Although this is a good indication that it may very well be a plausible explanation of a man made technological event, I think even you can agree the videos linked fall very short of what is actually being discussed here with regards to definition and grandeur.

Lets be honest here for a minute shall we? You constantly and consistently take the approach that if a worldly explanation can be made, even if remotely, then all other 'non worldly' (or otherwise) explanation(s) are invalid. And that's cool, some just need to find a way to fit everything in a pre-planned box. But here is the thing, just because something can be plausibly explained does not definitively mean that no other explanation can work or is right, and to get back to the 'honest' part here, this is the approach of every single post you make.

The fact is that even with the videos you posted, nothing has yet surfaced to provide conclusive proof that it is a byproduct of man made tech. And to that end it would benefit all to discuss and flesh out any and all other possibilities (worldly or otherwise) least we all stand to fall by the same boxed logic, even if it's just 1 in 1,000,000 times.

Is this a byproduct of man made technology? Probably, but can it be proven right now beyond a shadow of a doubt? Hardly. Is this proof of some mystic portal or alien/UFO technology? Again, hardly. But please do not take the monotone approach that everything and everything MUST have a scientific explanation. To do so is just the opposite side of the coin to those who think because no explanation can be had it must be 'aliens' or 'God'. Your side of the coin is just as absurd with the notion that everything without a clear explanation MUST have one and therefore no 'Aliens' or 'God'.

Anyway, thank you for posting the videos. It really only further supports the claim that what we are actually talking about here is really without explanation and/or support of historic/scientific data. So, the hunt for an explanation must go on. Personally, if I had to guess, I believe it to be some sort of very rare atmospheric phenomena. No proof of such but just a hunch...

reply to post by HomeBrew

Although this is a good indication that it may very well be a plausible explanation of a man made technological event, I think even you can agree the videos linked fall very short of what is actually being discussed here with regards to definition and grandeur.

No I can't agree. The phenomena are essentially the same. If you want an exact duplication you are merely moving the goalposts. Since the exact appearance depends on a multitude of variables all you are really doing is demonstrating a strong confirmation bias in rejecting other examples.

You asked for one video. You have been shown several.

Phage
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

Although this is a good indication that it may very well be a plausible explanation of a man made technological event, I think even you can agree the videos linked fall very short of what is actually being discussed here with regards to definition and grandeur.

No I can't agree. The phenomena are essentially the same. If you want an exact duplication you are merely moving the goalposts. Since the exact appearance depends on a multitude of variables all you are really doing is demonstrating a strong confirmation bias in rejecting other examples.

You asked for one video. You have been shown several.

edit on 9/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Some believe if they say it then it must be true, and unfortunately you seem to suffer from this. To use your own words, you are in fact using a strong bias and rejecting the reality in that although there is a slight similarity, the difference between the videos you posted and the still unexplained phenomena we (here in this thread) are actually talking about are vastly different. Furthermore the only one 'moving goal posts' is you and the fruitless attempt in siting videos you posted as "essentially the same", which obviously they are not. With regards to your videos I find the following quote nicely fitting; one swallow does not a summer make...

Having said all of that, you very well may be right, but not just because you prematurely proclaim to be. I will take the path to denying ignorance and keep all options open until we actually know what it is, and have a good time discussing alternate (READ: probably implausible) possibilities with an open mind. Try not to take this the wrong way, I just prefer not to be spoon fed probable opinion as 'fact', as well as enjoy out of the box discussion. I know that is not your groove, but I do appreciate the line you toe. I suppose it keeps us all grounded.

reply to post by HomeBrew

To use your own words, you are in fact using a strong bias and rejecting the reality in that although there is a slight similarity, the difference between the videos you posted and the still unexplained phenomena we (here in this thread) are actually talking about are vastly different.

No. They are not vastly different. And the phenomena are not at all "unexplained". The term is confirmation bias, it's a special type of bias. One that prevents you from actually looking at the explanation and the evidence.

I will take the path to denying ignorance and keep all options open until we actually know what it is,

And how will you "actually know what it is?"

But it seems the rocket option is pretty low on your list of options. In spite of the fact that it corresponds exactly with the observed phenomena.

Phage
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

To use your own words, you are in fact using a strong bias and rejecting the reality in that although there is a slight similarity, the difference between the videos you posted and the still unexplained phenomena we (here in this thread) are actually talking about are vastly different.

No. They are not vastly different. And the phenomena are not at all "unexplained". The term is confirmation bias, it's a special type of bias. One that prevents you from actually looking at the explanation and the evidence.

I will take the path to denying ignorance and keep all options open until we actually know what it is,

And how will you "actually know what it is?"

But it seems the rocket option is pretty low on your list of options. In spite of the fact that it corresponds exactly with the observed phenomena.

Yes, they are vastly different (See, me saying so makes it right just like you). And I will point out again that I have already stated that you are probably right with regards to a man made rocket byproduct so kicking the dead horse about a 'confirmation bias' reeks of misdirection with shades of a personal attack on my understanding, as well as left of the actual topic at hand. To be honest I expect more from you than to try to beat a debate ad hominem.

So just to be crystal clear, you are probably right but, and again, the videos you provide are no more evidence for what we are discussing in this topic as is the coloration between a doughnut and the grand canyon. Forgive me if I choose to keep an open mind until evidence of a substantial nature comes along as I simply do not and obviously can not agree with your illogical conclusion that what is being displayed corresponds 'exactly' with what you provide as evidence in the videos.

As far as what I consider 'high on my list'? This is where you and I differ. I like to keep all reasonable options open until we have enough evidence to make a logical and reasonable conclusion. It's when you see something that has no readily available explanation and instantly formulate a 'high on the list' explanation without proper evidence that reeks of ignorance. However, I will state again, the theory that it is a by product of man made technology is as close to a reasonable assumption one could make at this point without any real (read: substantial) proof of anything yet. Although it is important to me that I do not base conclusion or bias opinion off of 'reasonable assumption one could make at this point without any real (read: substantial) proof of anything yet'.

reply to post by HomeBrew

It's when you see something that has no readily available explanation and instantly formulate a 'high on the list' explanation without proper evidence that reeks of ignorance.

It's when you reject a readily available explanation which has plenty of evidence to support it (in favor of some unknown and unexplained natural phenomenon) that you truly reek of ignorance. Of course, some people just like to keep something in the "unexplainable" category, even when evidence indicates otherwise.

reply to post by HomeBrew




I think, if you look at the still-shot photograph of the Chinese spiral, you might get a slightly misleading concept of its visual grandeur. It was a snapshot of the most spectacular moment during the entire event. But, if you look at the actual "video" of the Chinese spiral, like this: (fast-forward to about 1 minute in to see it moving)



It *really does* resemble the two videos that Phage linked. An irregular spiral being created by a swiftly rotating center which glows considerably brighter than the rest of it, with the "spokes" quickly dissipating into the surrounding sky. The Chinese is, indeed, a little bit better, with a couple full revolutions remaining visibly intact until they dissipate, but it is essentially the same.

However, the Norway Spiral is a completely different matter, in my opinion. Look at this:


That looks like a different effect to me. Those are perfect, concentric circles which remain visibly intact, spaced and shaped with PERFECT regularity, for over 13 revolutions from my count. For me, the jury is still out (at least for this one).

reply to post by Son of Will

Those are perfect, concentric circles which remain visibly intact, spaced and shaped with PERFECT regularity, for over 13 revolutions from my count.

Actually they are not concentric circles. It is a spiral. It did not remain intact, it expanded. The reason that particular batch of still photographs look so dramatic is because a telephoto lens was used and the image is obviously overexposed, making very dim portions of the spiral visible. But I'm not sure what significance the duration would be, it would depend on the duration of the fuel dump.


Here is a description from an ATS member who saw it:

The spiral was about 2-3 times the size of the moon at its biggest.
And it was stationary from point of view, or seemed to be at least.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And here:

The spiral lasted 1-2 minutes, the purple stuff could been seen drifting along the sky for about 15minutes. Looking like ordinary smoke, just purple.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The apparent diameter of the Moon is 0.5º. That would mean that the spiral was no more than several degrees across. Not quite as spectacular as that image would seem to indicate. It's amazing what a telephoto lens can do.

I read somewhere that the spirals might be do to Pole Shifts.

Or did someone throw that theory out?

Son of Will
However, the Norway Spiral is a completely different matter, in my opinion. Look at this:

That looks like a different effect to me. Those are perfect, concentric circles which remain visibly intact, spaced and shaped with PERFECT regularity, for over 13 revolutions from my count. For me, the jury is still out (at least for this one).

I've now posted here twice my explanation of the several different ways rocket and space events create different kinds of spirals. If I post it a third time, will you promise to open your eyes and mind to it, please?

Phage
reply to post by Son of Will

 

Those are perfect, concentric circles which remain visibly intact, spaced and shaped with PERFECT regularity, for over 13 revolutions from my count.

Actually they are not concentric circles. It is a spiral. It did not remain intact, it expanded. The reason that particular batch of still photographs look so dramatic is because a telephoto lens was used and the image is obviously overexposed, making very dim portions of the spiral visible. But I'm not sure what significance the duration would be, it would depend on the duration of the fuel dump.

Phage, since this shows the final minute of ascent thrusting for the Bulava ICBM, it's not fuel dumping, but probably thrust dumping of the third stage plume, through symmetric side ports, while the engine is still burning. Note how there are TWO interlocated spirals coming out 180d apart, that begin simo and then end simo -- a controlled process, not an accident. We've seen the identical visual effect from sub-launched ICBMs for decades, e.g. the 1984 Minsk airliner case -- and the spiral is not an indicator of failure or uncontrolled tumble.

reply to post by ImpactoR

It is a simple errant missile. We also had missiles in 1981 some of which went up and failed causing this same effect.
If you want to know what a spiral in the sky like this actually is then watch this:

reply to post by JimOberg

Understood.
I used the term in a generic sense, fuel being released from a spinning booster.