Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
There are a lot of unknowns as regards the missile firing, the main one is what kind of a test was it. If you look at the link for previous tests, some appear to be singularly for range, and some for altitude. Others were with a complete artificial mass others weren't. So if you don't know the specifics of that test, you can't presume if the test was success or failure.

www.astronautix.com...

reply to post by smurfy


I agree with you to certain degree there smurfy, but why shouldn't we now presume it was a failure when the ones who were presumably responsible for the launch (Russia) have declared that it was in fact a missile failure...

Point is, it's ok to presume it was a failure because, well,... the Russians have allowed us to..

Now, of course we can choose not to believe them for what ever the reason, which is fine I guess, but then we're having to invent things that there's just no evidence for...like EISCATS involvement or what have you...

[edit on 4-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

Snaps and Kudos to you for your excellent efforts! I'm not sure that I understand all of the elaborate grafts, charts and analogies, but I truly appreciate your hard work to help maintain an objective and informative viewpoint. From some of the responses to your good efforts, you'd think that you had just told a 6 year old that there was no Santa Clause!! Honestly!!! We all want disclosure and truthful reporting, but there is no reason to become dismissive and vitriolic. I think it's healthy to try to maintain some degree of objectivity on these and forthcoming mysterious events. Times, they are a changin' and we're going to need all of the analysis, analogies and investigative reasoning that we can collectively wrap our suspicious little minds around. Thank heavens that somebody in this joint ain't being all Chicken Little!

reply to post by PhotonEffect
What you say is the unspoken supposition, the coin can fall either way. I actually think it was a failure of perhaps a maneuverablity test. This thing seems terribly complex/ambitious when you look at the baldy faq sheet.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

I will say this with certainty though...The SKY SPIRAL WAS NOT CAUSED BY A MISSILE. So, from the evidence that I've seen, there's a far better chance that it was caused by HAARP/Eiscat as opposed to a missile.

I'm completely baffled by your claim...

There's no way for you to be certain of that.

What evidence are you talking about? Not the links you gave me earlier right?








[edit on 4-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

There are a lot of unknowns as regards the missile firing, the main one is what kind of a test was it. If you look at the link for previous tests, some appear to be singularly for range, and some for altitude. Others were with a complete artificial mass others weren't. So if you don't know the specifics of that test, you can't presume if the test was success or failure.

www.astronautix.com...

Well I have to admit, the thread has taken an unexpected turn. It should be interesting to see where this goes.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

I will say this with certainty though...The SKY SPIRAL WAS NOT CAUSED BY A MISSILE. So, from the evidence that I've seen, there's a far better chance that it was caused by HAARP/Eiscat as opposed to a missile.

I'm completely baffled by your claim...

There's no way for you to be certain of that.

What evidence are you talking about? Not the links you gave me earlier right?








[edit on 4-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

Oh, I'm pretty certain that the missile itself could not have caused the spiraling. However, in light of new information, there seems to be a possibility that there was a collaborative effort.

This information here demonstrates that there is no way under the circumstances that the missile exhaust could have been moving at a strong enough speed to have not dissipated in the altitude, speed of the wind...etc. These figures are not really debatable under the circumstances. Otherwise the missile would be defying the laws of physics.
docs.google.com...

However, in light of new information, there is a possibility of a collaboration of technologies.
www.enterprisemission.com...

So, I am in the process of possibly revamping my opinion.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
There is one thing that I could speculate on, just from the picture. The spirals shadow one another, and get darker as they progress from the centre..which is the missile rotating and has just turned, and is flying away from the direct view of the camera, and what the camera is viewing is a virtual cone from the inside, the tip of which is the bright spot in the middle ie; the missile itself, which eventually exhausts the designated fuel or disintegrates or whatever, it's the picture which has the interest.
Edit to add, hadn't seen your last post, and to say I think that the famous picture is just an optical illusion, to me the outermost to the innermost of the spiral equates to the oldest to the youngest parts of the spiral and that way the spiral is easily an exhaust. A bit like someone blowing smoke rings at you.






[edit on 4-2-2010 by smurfy]

The form we see in the spiral is one that we see more or less every day. It is a spiral! Flush the toilet, it's there! A fundamental dynamic form of nature. There are so many liquids, energies, gasses, galaxies and lifeforms that sometimes move in this way, that it would not be too far fetched to deduce that this is a fundamental function of movement in time-space.
It (the spiral) can also be seen in so many ways.

In 2-d, from the side; a sinus wave.
In 3-d from the side; a corkscrew.
In 2-d from the front; a spiral.
In 3-d from the front; a vortex.

Those are the basics. Then there are the more or less symmetric, coherent variations on those themes.

My point is that so many, seemingly unrelated, parts of the world, move in a spiral formation under certain conditions. Thus it is possible to 'prove' VERY many different theories concerning the origin of a visual phenomenon with spiral tendencies.

Let your mind be open. Knowledge is stagnation.



Nothing is true, everything is permitted. (Hassan I Sabbah)

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Did you read that whole article?
And you agree wholeheartedly with this theory?

Even the bit where they try to compare weather radar anomalies with the spiral?

Or this fine piece of ignorant misinformation?

The Department of Defense "turned on" the first versions of its Alaskan "HAARP" Project ... and the National Weather Service activated the first new "NEXRAD" weather radar systems across the nation.

And thus--

Enabled a nation-wide civilian radar network -- coast to coast -- capable of actually seeing, for the first time, the upper atmosphere/iononsphere "electronic plasma fingerprints" of HAARP experiments

Sounds like they're just throwing everything at the wall and hope something sticks.

When I did a search 3 minutes ago on Google using the search words 'norway spiral', I got 1460000 hits. One million, four hundred and sixty thousand hits. Not all those hits are relevant to my inquiry, I guess, but none the less...

That still means, that the chance of there being a combination of theories and deductions available on the internet that explain the truth behind this event, is overwhelmingly huge.

Obviously, the X-files weren't all wrong. The 'truth' is out there.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by brageboogie]

edit: human failure





[edit on 4-2-2010 by brageboogie]

reply to post by Chadwickus


Exactly. The second part of their analysis utilised some great maths and great evidence. Then, this third part (which I was eagerly awaiting), seems to just vomit on critical thinking. What a joke.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

There is one thing that I could speculate on, just from the picture. The spirals shadow one another, and get darker as they progress from the centre..which is the missile rotating and has just turned, and is flying away from the direct view of the camera, and what the camera is viewing is a virtual cone from the inside, the tip of which is the bright spot in the middle ie; the missile itself, which eventually exhausts the designated fuel.

Definitely not a bad observation. I've been looking over this stuff and I'm still a bit confused, but, this is a new take on this sky spiral.

reply to post by Chadwickus


I haven't said that I agreed with anything yet or not. I'm studying the situation to see if my opinion changes. And that's what I intend to do.

You should be happy though...at least I'm entertaining the missile idea as a valid scenario.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by gwydionblack

 

So, you are implying that you think this wasn't Government related... and further implying with your "on the Whitehouse Lawn" comments that you belive this was a UFO.

That's cool.

I don't buy it because mathematical analysis reveals that it was precisely what the Russians said it was.
Only, the Russians predicted it.

I think you know exactly what gwydioblack was referring to when he made the UFO analogy to the White House Lawn.

Being difficult with the intentions of such doesn't help the thread.

Ok first off hello and i love your forum.


Mr Richard Hoagland has posted a 3rd part of his "norway spiral" decoding document on his web site and its pretty interesting.

for those who do not know about the first two documents the links are here

www.enterprisemission.com... part 1

www.enterprisemission.com... part 2

And the most interesting part3 www.enterprisemission.com...

Hope you enjoy!

reply to post by opiate


Uh, did you happen to read this page before posting your links?

Just wondering

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by opiate

 

Uh, did you happen to read this page before posting your links?

Just wondering

No not the whole thread but some of the material provided by tauristercus.Is there a problem?

Originally posted by tauristercus
Plagiarism ???
I would caution you most strongly to be extremely careful with your accusatory and defamatory tone and remarks directed towards myself and the work that I present on this forum. I most certainly do NOT appreciate, and will NOT tolerate this type of belligerent attitude from you or anyone else that responds to any of my work that I choose to post on this site....

Tauristercus,

I have no desire here to get in a protracted war of the “egos,” especially seeing your defensive and dramatic reply, but my dispute here has more to do with ethics and fair play than anything else. Even though you state:

“I had NEVER even heard of you or of any work created by you in regards to the Norway spiral event.”

- this is somewhat hard to believe seeing that your methodology, the sequence and presentation, along with the numerous similarities in figures/tables, directly follows my work and should be obvious to anybody that takes the time to read both essays.

And why are you cautioning me? - as neither one of our works is “officially” published, this is a forum not a peer-reviewed journal.

As far as my comment ”I think in academia this would be considered plagiarism,” I still stand by that, although this certainly would be a subjective assessment usually done by a third unbiased party, certainly not by you or me. Also, my page was posted on my company site with a copyright clearly shown, and all other copyrights to other works and photographs was clearly referenced.

So is this really plagiarism? Plagiarism.org states that the following are considered plagiarism (partial list):

1) “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own”
2) “to use (another's production) without crediting the source”
3) “to commit literary theft”
4) “to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source”
5) “copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not”

Looking at both of these works, any similarity in one item by itself may not seem significant, but as a whole many items amass a much more compelling argument that one work clearly follows the same path of the other:

1) Both start with the realization that the pictures by Jan-Petter Jørgensen were from Skjervoy and not Tromsø (I know, so what, big deal).

2) Both then proceed with the identical 5 pictures by Jan-Petter Jørgensen noting the growth and movement (again big deal).

3) Both proceed with the superposition of only the first three of these series of photos. Now this is interesting why would you chose only 3? – I used 3 because at the time I only had those 3 images and was not even aware of the other two, otherwise I would have logically used all 5 of them, this makes much more since. So your Image 6 is essentially identical to my Photo #6 right down to annotated red dots and spiral radii and with the same intent of showing movement of the spiral.

4) Both proceed in locating suitable images to overlay in Google terrain and vector the lay lines westerly; we use the exact same 4 locations and images, and you add an addition two.

5) Both then use the identical peak at the Kvanangstinder saw back mountains (out of numerous peaks) to scale the angles to the line-of-site distances to each of the center points of the spirals. Both come up with almost identical angles (2.97° vs. 2.96°) and the verbiage is strikingly similar:

Yours:
“Thankfully such a reference angle is easily obtained by using the westernmost summit of the Kvanangstinder mountains….”

Mine:
“Luckily, such a reference dimension is easily obtained at the Skjervoy location.”

6) Both label points of the overlaid developing and dissipating spirals using letters A-F (your Image 28) and A-E (my Image #20 & #39).

Continued ......