Norway Spiral : Case Closed

reply to post by Arbitrageur



i think the cameras wouldn't be close matched and the tether was only 12miles long or so, not 18,000 km long?


i was under the assumption that every one agreed that the 3rd stage was waaayyyy up there.

still doesn't explain why no other, wider sightings tho.

which makes it even more odd.

reply to post by tauristercus


Great thread again, and great conclusion.

I'm very glad you pulled through.

Why would Russia choose that precise moment in time to conduct such an experiment ... especially knowing that the president of the USofA was also at that time no more than a "stones throw" from the launch site ? How about it was Russia's way of sending a message to the USofA, essentially an "in your face" gesture, informing the most powerful man in the world that Russia is still more than capable of developing and deploying extremely advanced technology of its own, and remains a force to be reckoned with !

I think it might be a bit different, I think that Russia shot the Bulava, and that another party created the spiral as a defense measure, and also as a warning.

Anyways, great job Tauristercus.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by Point of No Return]

Wow, this thread is dissapearing from the front page, I think people are not seeing this is Part 3.

Replies and flags please.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Wow, this thread is dissapearing from the front page, I think people are not seeing this is Part 3.

Replies and flags please.

Also quite possible that once a topic outlives it's "novelty" value (which here on ATS, is normally a few weeks at best), that most people simply move on looking for the "next flavour of the day" ... unfortunate but apparently true.

In my opinion, the Norway Spiral event has to rank as one of the most significant technological events of the last few decades. If what I think really did happen, then a certain nation now has an incredibly powerful technology at their disposal ... and yet the vast majority of the global population only saw "pretty lights" in the sky and failed utterly to grasp what happened that morning and what capabilities that nation now has.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Wow, this thread is dissapearing from the front page, I think people are not seeing this is Part 3.

Replies and flags please.

I've just asked the moderators to rename the title of this thread to "Norway Spiral : Case closed"

in the hope that it will become obvious that this is actually a NEW thread in the series.

Maybe this wasn't photographed or seen from the side because there was no side?

If it were two dimensional this would explain why this occurred.

This would also rule out a missile, right?

Maybe ucalien is right about this being Project Blue Beam. Maybe I've just read too many sci-fi books.

I don't know, it's just something I have wondered about since this all came up and this seems to be the first time it's been brought up. If my logic doesn't hold up, then so be it.

reply to post by tauristercus


You know I'm going to say this, but I guess I'm obligated to:

Those photos are of insufficient quality to perform any analysis on. Compression artefacts will be many times larger than any part of an ICBM, and so will render the image entirely unsuitable for the purposes you are using it.

Other than that, great work! I'm still entirely convinced it was either the advanced maneuverability of the ICBM that caused the white spiral. If the ICBM's third stage is fuelled by solid propellant, which is logistically easier to store than liquid fuel (as you can keep the missile ready without requiring cryogenic facilities), then it's feasible that the missile's third stage is ignited upon separation, and the exhaust is vectored in order to steer the bus. When more details of the Bulava are released, which is bound to happen at some point in the not-too-distant future, we'll have a better understanding of the capabilities of the missile. Russia touts it as having extensive countermeasures, and far improved maneuverability over the Topol-M upon which it is based.

Again, though, great work.

reply to post by Point of No Return


Defence measure? Warning?

There is no evidence anything even exists that can do that, let alone was used, whereas there is evidence that illuminated exhaust or particulates in space, illuminated from behind by the sun, will achieve such an effect.

OK, I am usually extremely conservative about things like this. Any mention of HAARP normally makes me laugh. Ha Ha. See, I laughed. But on this one, with seemingly sensible people crying "warped space time" and wormholes etc I have to say:

Hang on a minute. Before we go leaping off the deep end, lets start in the middle where we have a bit of footing.


Auroras. Think about it. Ionospheric heaters make quite visible aurora type phenomena. They make spirals as has recently been reported. Here's a thread about it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now the only weapon-like thing ionospheric zapping machines can do as far as we know is create high energy (relativistic) particles in the upper ionosphere making for a nifty anti missile/spacecraft weapon...potentially anyhow. Here's that famous patent that discusses this possibility:

www.bariumblues.com...


I'm goint to cry EISCAT....They're doing something we don't know about involving electrons and magnetic fields and some kind of super-dooper development of the simple ideas we have access to in the Eastland patent etc. I think it was a test of EM anti missile technology. It seems like the simplest answer at the moment.

This link offers an interesting perspective:

www.godlikeproductions.com...



[edit on 20-2-2010 by mrwiffler]

tauristercus

What are your thoughts on the similarities between these two videos?

The first is the extended footage of the Norway spiral that you posted:



The second video is of the Charged Aerosol Release Experiment that NASA recently launched.

This was the experiment to study the effects of noctilucent clouds, launched on a Black Brant XII rocket.

I see some similarities here, like the speed the gas ejects and dissipates despite the high altitude and the faint 'black hole' appearing as it disappears.



Thoughts?

reply to post by davesidious

Defence measure? Warning? There is no evidence anything even exists that can do that, let alone was used, whereas there is evidence that illuminated exhaust or particulates in space, illuminated from behind by the sun, will achieve such an effect.

No, just the words from HAARP's inventor.

HAARP patent:

Patent for HAARP: US Patent and Trademardk Office. US Patent No. 4,686,605 Bernard Eastlund August 11, 1987 Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere Abstract: This invention has a phenomenal variety of possible ramifications and potential future developments. As alluded to earlier, missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion could result, particularly when relativistic particles are employed. Also, large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection of same.

HAARP is very similar to EISCAT.

Also this:

In this regard, a report published by the Russian parliament (Duma) in 2002, suggests that the US Military had plans to test its weather modification techniques at its Alaska facility, as well as at two other sites: "The committees reported that the USA is planning to test three facilities of this kind. One of them is located on the military testing ground in Alaska and its full-scale tests are to begin in early 2003. The second one is in Greenland and the third one in Norway. "When these facilities are launched into space from Norway, Alaska and Greenland, a closed contour will be created with a truly fantastic integral potential for influencing the near-Earth medium," the State Duma said. (Interfax News Agency, original Russian, BBC Monitoring, 8 August 2002, emphasis added)

From this source it seems that governments and militairy is involved in EISCAT, assuming it is the Norway reference.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
tauristercus

What are your thoughts on the similarities between these two videos?

The first is the extended footage of the Norway spiral that you posted:


The second video is of the Charged Aerosol Release Experiment that NASA recently launched.

This was the experiment to study the effects of noctilucent clouds, launched on a Black Brant XII rocket.

I see some similarities here, like the speed the gas ejects and dissipates despite the high altitude and the faint 'black hole' appearing as it disappears.


Thoughts?

Thats a very interesting vid on the noctilucent cloud experiment that thruthfully, I hadn't been aware of such experiments so had to do some quick research (Google is my friend ) to get up to speed.

From looking at the 2nd vid, I agree that there are some similarities evident such as unusual shape, brightly illuminated material and rapid dissipation. But otherwise lacking in other characteristics such as highly defined structural details and the entire event only lasted seconds.

But during my quick research, i have to say more questions than answers were generated. I'm sure there are simple and satisfactory answers to them but for a layperson such as myself, still confusing.

Firstly, i asked myself why the interest in reproducing noctilucent clouds ? As far as i can tell, this type of cloud occurs at the maximum altitude for cloud formation and consequently are quite rare. Apparently they occur at a maximum altitude of between 76 to 85 kilometers (47 to 53 mi), higher than any other clouds in Earth's atmosphere. But then I read on the official wavy.com website that the 4th stage (didn't even know some rockets could have 4 stages !) created the artificial noctilucent cloud at an altitude of 277 kms (173 miles) and I immediately thought WTF !! 277 kms is officially way out in space and where it would be IMPOSSIBLE for natural clouds to form.
So what was this experiment really trying to accomplish ?

The next thing that struck me as odd was that even though NASA supplied the launch facilities and the Black Brant XII suborbital sounding rocket, the project itself appeared to be under the direct control of the Naval Research Laboratory and the Department of Defense Space Test Program ... so unless I'm reading this completely wrong, this doesn't seem to me like a simple civilian science experiment to create an artificial cloud if these two heavyweights were directly involved.

Now don't get me wrong as I'm not crying 'conspiracy' or whatever ... just that the incredible altitude used for the test (in space) and that the military were in full control just rings bells for me.

Actually, it just occurred to me that the Norway Spiral event AND this alleged 'cloud' experiment BOTH occured above the atmosphere and out in space and BOTH under military control ... is that significant ?

Here's a conjecture based ONLY on my point of view ... what if technology is being developed and tested by both Russia and the US that results in these types of atmospheric phenomena ... which then implies that whatever the technology may be, it's considered very important by the military of both nations.

reply to post by tauristercus


Great work! I have read your previous work on this subject and am impressed by your scientific approach and well-constructed arguments.

I do believe the spiral was created, rather than the result/by-product of some or arbitrary event.

On the discussion of the perceived 2-dimentional aspect of the spiral, I was wondering if the wormhole posters weren't on to something when I saw this image

Perhaps it was a tunnel opening up in space, and the black hole at the end was the opening up and connecting of the tunnel to wherever it was connecting to.

This is only a half-serious thought, and in no way intended to diminish your efforts on this topic.

Regards

snippet ((( )))) >>>> www.kirtland.af.mil...

its making sence



Russians playing with something like this ? who knows

looking at all sides here


i just still have a problem with that one thing the longest claim duration of the spinning missile, /rocket is 12 min of the norway spiral aka white sea event




[edit on 1-3-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Wolfenz]

DISINFO.

How do you explain all the other spiral events in China and Russia???
Missile misfire aswell?
Im serious...



[edit on 1-3-2010 by xynephadyn]

Originally posted by xynephadyn
DISINFO.

How do you explain all the other spiral events in China and Russia???
Missile misfire aswell?
Im serious...

I'm aware that there have been reports similar to that of the Norway Spiral being reported in other places, particularly from within China.

Given the opportunity, I most certainly would attempt an analysis but unfortunately these additional sightings are in no way as detailed as the recent Norway event. Consequently, any kind of attempted analysis would be completely foolhardy and any conclusions obtained based on minimal data would naturally be open to question.

As for your question "missile misfire as well ?", I think the detailed data analysis that I have performed on the Norway event quite clearly and unambiguously shows that whatever the mechanism that came into play to create the spiral phenomena, it was NOT caused by a failure of the 3rd stage ... and most certainly NOT the result of the widely publicized 'propellant leaks'.

reply to post by tauristercus


Quite possibly... I do agree.

I still think it's not impossible for it to be an issue with the MIRV, or more likely to do with the advanced maneuvering capabilities, or even the new exotic countermeasures, touted in this new ICBM. It might be an inherent flaw with the Bulava design that causes these failures, or it might be by design. As there will be more Bulava test flights at some point, the chances of us getting more information is pretty good, if they choose to launch at night (for the best viewing results).

Keep up the good work!

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

As there will be more Bulava test flights at some point, the chances of us getting more information is pretty good, if they choose to launch at night (for the best viewing results).

Yes, the more info we get, the better the resulting analysis becomes.

So hopefully if there are any additional atmospheric anomalies resulting from future Bulava test flights, that someone manages to get some good images of the initial few mins as the Bulava lifts. I have to admit to disappointment that in my current analysis, that such pics were not available to be included ... it would have gone a long way to silence some of the more ridiculous hypotheses being spouted (no names mentioned ! )

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Is it not possible that the missile was travelling from right to left, but also travelling away from the observer at a far greater speed than it was travelling from right to left? In that case it would essentially be travelling away from the observer, with a slight lateral motion. That would allow a lateral leak to look as we saw.

YES- This is how believe it to have travelled as well davesidious.

Borrowing an image from Tauristercus- which shows overlays from different segments of that video shot from Tromso - one might be able to actually see the flight path you've described...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5fbf6b76e40e.png[/atsimg]

It's been my belief that the blue exhaust trail and the white spiral both followed the same general trajectory or shared the same axis. The picture above seems to show this... And why wouldn't they, if you believe a missile caused this?

That the blue trail appears to lie on an axis which is parallel to the viewing plane while the white spiral appears to be on one that's perpendicular to it, is an optical illusion IMO; inherently caused by the great distance and height that this event took place from the photographers' locations.

Having said that, this could also indicate why witnesses - while spread across a fairly large viewing area, but sharing the same general perspective of the spirals - essentially saw it the same way--

Now, while I haven't looked into this idea more deeply, I'm curious if someone were to analyze all the available pictures and videos starting from the northern most point (in Skjervoy) and working their way south (through to the other 5 or 6 locations-) if they would notice the blue spiral appearing to shorten in length the further south and west/east (to Anstad/Puoltsa) they went...

Yes, the blue spiral would give the appearance of shortening in length as the observer traveled southwards from Skjervoy. This would be purely due to the gradually decreasing viewing angle from the observers location to the start and end of the event.
See below ...

And I'd also wonder if the white spiral would appear to be more stationary (as some witnesses reported) the further south and east from Skjervoy or Tromso the viewing angle was... because from the Tromso video it seems clear that there is distinctive movement to the left... so would this movement become less distinctive the further southwest/east of there you went?

You're absolutely correct ... the further south (from Skjervoy) that the observer was, the smaller the angle subtended by the event trajectory. This would mean the Skjervoy observer would see the event cross more of his field of view (bigger viewing angle) and apparently faster than would say an observer in Anstad, who would be seeing the event from a sharper (smaller viewing) angle giving the illusion it didn't move as quickly or as far.
In fact, theoretically, if you were to go south far enough (and cross over into Sweden), you'd eventually think the event was a single spiral sitting stationary in the sky ... and eventually disappearing.

Here's a pic comparing the observers viewing angles at Skjervoy (16.8 degrees) and Anstad (13.3 degrees). You can clearly see that the trajectory covers a larger viewing angle when viewed from the Skjervoy location.
We also have to bear in mind that irrespective of time-lapse being used at Skjervoy, the spiral event WILL appear much larger at Skjervoy compared to Anstad because Skjervoy is approximately 210 kms closer to the event.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c91e40a4efe7.jpg[/atsimg]

Note: I hope and assume that by now you trust my math calculations and that I don't need to go into exacting detail how I arrived at the above angles.
Suffice it to say that I used the Law of Cosines, followed by the Law of Sines

reply to post by tauristercus


Sines? Cosines? WITCH! BURN HIM!

Fantastic work. We (well, you - I'm just along for the ride, it seems) are getting much closer to pinning this thing down - the amount of unknowns is being rapidly reduced to the equipment in the missile itself, as would be expected in an objective analysis.

The Norway Spiral facinates me. It looks exactly like a portal is opening & closing. Who knows how big the mouth really was and who knows if something traveled through...