Norway Spiral Mathematically Proven to not be a Missile

The ICBM was above the atmosphere, still being illuminated by the sun (hence the glowing). The lack of atmosphere caused the spiral to be very uniform and stable. You can see how the blue spiral turns into white cloud when it reaches the horizon. There is no reason to believe it is not a missile.

Those still banging on about HAARP or EISCAT, or some nonsense about some shadowy project no one has any evidence of at all, are doing so not out of logic or critical thought, but because they either don't believe experts in the field, or don't understand physics and what an ICBM is, or really really really want to live in a world where they are the fighters for truth and justice against a machine comprised of the governments of the world and all its intellectuals.

Kind of like the A-Team, but instead of being holed up in a barn fighting communists, being holed up in a forum fighting intelligence. Brilliant.

Originally posted by davesidious
The lack of atmosphere caused the spiral to be very uniform and stable.

You don't seem to understand that that is not the only thing that would have to be uniform in order to create such a perfect spiral.

The missile itself would have to be spiraling perfectly, with no aberrations or instabilities in its trajectory, over an extended period of time, and in a straight line through the center of the spiral, in order to create this. I can't even see where the spiral itself has any depth to it, as if this "missile" would have to be floating in place! (Not the blue spiral leading to the center of it, but the white spiral itself.)


I have already said I wouldn't doubt this being linked to military technology, or a rocket being launched at some point as per the trail way in the distance behind the thing, but the spiral itself is a total anomaly. I cannot fathom such a thing being created by an out-of-control rocket. A spiral is almost the definition of total order and coherency in a physical system, and that is the exact opposite of the chaos a malfunctioned rocket implies.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by bsbray11]

Looks like a magnetic field to me.

Is the polarity very strong in that area? ie. Look at magnet iron filings...

Create a spiral via the magnetic field.

So I tend to agree with the ideas presented by the OP.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by whiteraven]

Originally posted by bsbray11
You see what I mean about this thing going to be huge, if it is really 300 miles up in space, when the jumbo jets you see in the sky are cruising only 7.5 miles up?

thank you.
i had an intuitive idea of this but, lacking the math skills to explain or demonstrate, i didn't mention it

-----------------------

Originally posted by SLaPPiE
I think it would help to use the minimum altitude guesses to then determine if the spirals appearent outer diameter is even plausable.

good idea. we have the figures for the maximum already but that's only half of the possibility.

Many of us just don't see the missle you do and we don't believe a random failure can be so perfectly odd. Yes some of the video looks plausable as a missle, but the stills and IR just say "That's no missle" to us.

yes. thank you. i can't be convinced by persuasion and the more effort at persuasion, and the more vehement the protester, the more i tend to be UN-convinced
(as in: "methinks thou doth protest too much.")

NOT convinced of any idea of my own, either - i've speculated greatly but can't say i've found anything, so far, that gives my curiosity any satisfaction

We are still speculating as to what the really is while thae farts want it put to bed. Sorry bout that.

curiosity never sleeps!

-----------------------

Originally posted by bsbray11
The only reason I can see for you trying to place this spiral directly over the White Sea, is simply because you are trying to FORCE it to be a rocket as per your personal opinion, which was pre-conceived and apparently not based on any of this math.

i agree with this - not pointing fingers at Phage, personally, but rather at this sort of attitude and behavior that's been rampant lately. Especially at ATS which is, quite frankly, surprising and puzzling.

What is your field of expertise again, or your college/university major? Why should I even believe you intuitively understand what you are saying in the first place? Because as far as I have seen, the extent of your expertise is the arrogant chap on your avatar, decorated with medals for consistently denouncing mysterious appearances in the sky as rockets, satellites and swamp gas no doubt. And it's no secret that it doesn't take more than an adolescent with an undeserved sense of accomplishment to achieve all that. So I am simply asking out of curiosity, what exactly are your credentials?

i already asked this, generally

but now i'm asking Phage, directly, too.
i had thought that Phage answered this, somewhere in this thread, but i can't find it.
if you did answer me, Phage, i apologize for forgetting where it was. could you remind me of what your answer was?

-----------------------

Originally posted by downisreallyup
If there is the tiniest chance that perhaps physics is even remotely incomplete in its description of the universe, any true scientist OWES IT to science and himself to investigate any serious scientific claim, using his best ability, with an open mind, critical thinking, and scientific rigor. He MUST NOT, however, limit his thinking to only that which he has already concluded, but must seriously seek an explanation that may indeed either enhance or modify his existing assumptions.

In short, he must seriously guard against that infernal enemy to true science....PARADIGM!

EXACTLY!

and many of us non-physicists KNOW that we DON'T know everything there is to know in any field of physics or even science!
and if we know, the scientists must certainly know, even more so, that not all is known about the nature of the things that be.

but surely we are all aware of hubris and the signs of its manifestation

There was a lot going on in that area that makes it difficult to confirm the exact cause. Undoubtedly there was some particulate matter at a high altitude from the ICBM that would have reflected the dawning sun.

My own pet theory is that the circular polarization from an EISCAT beam might have corralled the particulate matter into a beautiful reflecting spiral. Both EISCAT and HAARP use a similar spiral beam.

www.brojon.org...

The EISCAT beam itself should not be in the visible spectrum for any reason that I can think of. The auroral effects from HAARP we have seen in images are not as tightly symmetrical either.

The best hypothesis is that there might have been something like an electrostatic effect on the ICBM's particulate remnants that caused them to take on the beam structure. Predictable effect actually.

Originally posted by Bordon81
My own pet theory is that the circular polarization from an EISCAT beam might have corralled the particulate matter into a beautiful reflecting spiral. Both EISCAT and HAARP use a similar spiral beam.

That is the first thing I've read that actually sounds credible to me.

Congrats.


Who knows what in the hell the thing actually was. I just can't believe a malfunctioning rocket could maintain such a steady and consistent trajectory while spiraling around out of control.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Bordon81
My own pet theory is that the circular polarization from an EISCAT beam might have corralled the particulate matter into a beautiful reflecting spiral. Both EISCAT and HAARP use a similar spiral beam.

That is the first thing I've read that actually sounds credible to me.

Congrats.

Who knows what in the hell the thing actually was. I just can't believe a malfunctioning rocket could maintain such a steady and consistent trajectory while spiraling around out of control.

I have posted a similar idea on a similar thread.
HAARP was supposedly developed for missile defense. I gather EISCAT
is likewise able to disrupt guidance systems as well.
Was the blue the missile and the white spiral the EISCT signal?
Was a missile aborted and deflected by VHF instead of HF.
"ground control to Major Tom"

sound waves

((((sound waves))))
think about that, analytical open-minded non-FaRRT's!!

PEACE out

I've been gradually trying to get a handle on all of this information and process it. I have a severe learning disability in mathematics, so analyzing the trig for myself is sadly not an option.

However, I do have several questions:

1) Can others who are proficient in trig tell me if the math is at least correct, apart from the conclusion stemming from it?
2) Can anyone with a physics or meteorology background independently confirm for me that the assertion that smoke particulates cannot travel at the velocities hypothesized in the premise is true?
3) A post on the blog itself replied with the following:

I noticed much to my horror that Tromsø where you reference the Rex Features photos is not the correct location. Those 3 very popular shots taken by Jan Petter Jørgensen (Rex Features) were from the vicinity of the north breakwater (visibe in the photos) at Skjervoy some 55 miles to the northeast of Tromsø. You can verify this yourself by using Google's terrain mode and looking northeast from behind the breakwater at sea level and you will clearly see the same mountain range (Kvanangstinder) that is in the photo backgrounds. If you look closely at the video by Kevin Martin you will see that he also correctly locates the photos at Skjervoy.

...

So far I have successfully mapped photos from Skjervoy, Markenes (Hwy E6), Storsteinnes, and Harstad to Google with the lay lines to the spiral all converging around the NW entrance of White Lake and the origin converging near the lower SW portion of the Lake and possibly inland to the west of the Lake (Russia). In any case, the spiral phenomenon is clearly not over Norway. I'm in the process of posting these to my website and can provide the link later is you are interested.

There is also a very interesting photo from Puoltsa, Sweden I think on Road BD-870 (www.nsd.se...) which shows the spiral in almost the exact stage of formation as the 1st Skjervoy photo and with no visible obliqueness despite this location some 160 miles SW of Skjervoy, quite revealing in itself that this phenomenon was hundreds of miles away. Unfortunately no discernible geographic features to map to Google Earth (mountains, etc.)

Source< br />
If the above is true, does it invalidate the premise?

Thanks!

[edit on 12/27/2009 by AceWombat04]

reply to post by AceWombat04


If the location the photographs were taken from is really 55 miles off from where it was shown, then yeah it would definitely change the math but within a margin of error of significantly less than 25% I would say from what we were talking about earlier. The White Sea is still about 600 miles away, and the suggested altitude of about 300 miles up in space would still stand and be equally ridiculous imo.

Both the distance and altitude extrapolated from the photos so far has just been pure speculation, though I was hoping someone would be able to gage some distances in the photos for reference. And if what you posted is correct, none of us even got the location of the photographer correct.

reply to post by bsbray11


Thank-you very much for your reply!

So, if I understand correctly, the premise is based upon the speculated distance of the phenomenon from its origin point to somewhere over Norway, and if the location from which the photograph was taken was 55 miles away from where it was initially assumed to be, it would change the math but not significantly enough to invalidate the premise.

However, if it was indeed not over Norway at all but instead much further away and merely visible from Norway (as suggested by the post I quoted - I'm not saying that's my assertion. I'm not asserting anything myself and am just asking questions,) then the validity of the premise or at least its mathematical basis would change a lot.

Is that correct?

Originally posted by AceWombat04
So, if I understand correctly, the premise is based upon the speculated distance of the phenomenon from its origin point to somewhere over Norway, and if the location from which the photograph was taken was 55 miles away from where it was initially assumed to be, it would change the math but not significantly enough to invalidate the premise.

Right but our premises could still be way off because all the numbers we have been throwing around are speculative estimates so far.

However, if it was indeed not over Norway at all but instead much further away and merely visible from Norway (as suggested by the post I quoted - I'm not saying that's my assertion. I'm not asserting anything myself and am just asking questions,) then the validity of the premise or at least its mathematical basis would change a lot.

Here is the White Sea:




Norway is off the left of the above map, on the other side of Scandinavia:



You can see where Tromso is there as well, so around in that general area, 55 miles NE of that is where the person you are quoting is referring to.


You should be able to see by these two images that if this thing were actually over the White Sea, and visible from this place in Norway, it should have also been visible over a very wide area that included Sweden, Finland and Russia as well.

Other images:






You can see the White Sea was not particularly close to the area where this was reported. Other cities are definitely closer to the White Sea, in fact other countries are closer to it.


EISCAT, however, has an ionosphere heating facility right there near Tromso.

EISCAT is an acronym for the European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association. It operates three incoherent scatter radar systems, at 224 MHz, 931 MHz in Northern Scandinavia and one at 500 MHz on Svalbard, used to study the interaction between the Sun and the Earth as revealed by disturbances in the ionosphere and magnetosphere. At the Ramfjordmoen facility (near Tromsø, Norway) it also operates an ionospheric heater facility, similar to HAARP. Additional receiver stations are located in Sodankylä, Finland, and Kiruna, Sweden. The EISCAT Headquarters are also located in Kiruna.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, essentially, even if the math is off to the degrees allowable by the different locations where the photograph(s) was/were taken versus where they were initially assumed to be, if we can prove that the phenomenon was not visible anywhere but in Norway (more or less,) the math proves that there are least a lot of unanswered questions pertaining to the rocket hypothesis, assuming I'm understand everything correctly. (Without specifically understanding the math itself.)

Right?

Originally posted by AceWombat04
if we can prove that the phenomenon was not visible anywhere but in Norway (more or less,) the math proves that there are least a lot of unanswered questions pertaining to the rocket hypothesis

It would be hard to prove a negative but yeah, we have multiple people filming this thing and photographing it from Norway but apparently nowhere else. The White Sea is 3 countries over in Russia, some 600 miles away, while EISCAT that people have been talking about was about 60 miles away apparently.

reply to post by bsbray11

Not paying attention are we?

Another assumption; that "no one" outside of northern Norway saw the spiral. The satellite image show that the majority of Scandinavia was covered with clouds and fog but you are right, there were areas that were not; Puoltsa,Sweden for example. It is about 200km south of Tromso. Interestingly, the photo taken from there also has the spiral in the East. Since the spiral was observed in such widely separated areas, in the same general direction and perspective, it would indicate that the spiral was quite distant from both. No?
www.nsd.se...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage


Okay, it was seen in Kiruna too, sourpuss.




Murmansk? Oulu? Lulea? Anywhere else in that massive area between Russia and the shore of Norway?

If you want to use cloud-cover as an excuse for all of these places then I want to see weather reports for all of them too.

That sounded like something worthy of checking out, so I found the weather reports for some of those locations on December 9 (I was unable to find the weather for Kiruna, Sweden, or Oulu, Findland, however):

It was cloudy in Murmansk (mean cloudiness of 90%) Source

It was cloudy in Lulea (mean cloudiness of 100%) that day. Source

It was cloudy in Rovaniemi. There is no mean, but it was raining and snowing. Source

I only have Google and other maps to go on as I'm not familiar with the geography of the area. Are there other cities I should look up? Those seemed to be the largest in the area that I could actually find the weather archives for.

I took a look around for weather reports for the 9th for some other cities in the area but didn't have much luck either.


Other cities in the area:

Apatity (right by the White Sea)
Kandalaksha
Kirovsk
Monchegorsk (right by the White Sea)
Petrozavodsk
Rovaniemi
Severodvinsk (right by the White Sea)


Google maps shows a number of other cities, a good many of them actually between the White Sea and Norway. To list them all here would be a pretty long list, so the ones I included above are cities that are in the immediate vicinity of the White Sea.

If we can find a general report of the cloud formations over Scandinavia and Russia for that day, we could probably cut to the chase more quickly as to where skies were clear and where they were not, so that we wouldn't have to hunt for forecasts for each of these cities blindly.

We can also look at the populations of these cities, so if we are able to find some that did not have such cloud cover we can compare how many people would have been around to see it with Kiruna and Tromso.

Kandalaksha was cloudy. (100%)

Petrozavodsk was cloudy (100%)

Rovaniemi was cloudy (no mean % established, but rain and snow.)

Severodvinsk was cloudy (90%)

I couldn't find the weather for Apatity, Kandalaksha, Kirovsk, or Monchegorsk, though.

Source

Originally posted by queenannie38
sound waves

((((sound waves))))
think about that, analytical open-minded non-FaRRT's!!

PEACE out

look

read






read







(((see?)))