Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

The sun is on the opposite side of the blue streak. Look at the big, uncropped photos, and you can plainly see the sun behind the mountains. That blue spiral is clearly in direct sunlight. The radiation causing the "blue aurora" would still be travelling in a straight line, causing aurora where it travelled. The blue spiral is not straight, and so can not be caused by radiation.

Your idea is preposterous, and not supported by any evidence what-so-ever. Sorry to be blunt, but there we go.

You'd have to be way above the surface of the Earth to see the Sun, as seen in the picture below from the OP, allthough there would be midnight Sun beyond the polar circle at this time of year:

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


That is the view from Norway of the spiral. Seriously, just think about what you just posted. All of it.

The spiral was from an ICBM, which flies into space. The trajectory, in the picture you yourself posted, is clearly being illuminated by the sun.

Thanks for proving that. I'm sure you didn't mean to.

You also didn't rebut how the spiral isn't straight, which it'd have to be if it was caused by stimulation from radiation. Or how the glow is backwards. Or how it makes a white rocket-exhaust-like cloud when in dense atmosphere and illuminated from behind by the sun.

Your argument has fallen apart at the seams. Tragic.

reply to post by davesidious


In a gamma burst, the excess "nothing" showing it self like a 2D spiral in 4D space-time is relative to the viewer, we are talking about bringing 0D into perhaps 10D, or a pentagonal crystal like geometric shape, always being 2D in visual shape towards the observer (all over Northern Scandinavia people observed a 2D spiral as if they were looking straight to them. The Russians obviously brought us into hyperspace with this one. It's nothing but a gamma-dreidel! A one poled fusion reaction, like what happens inside the sun, and what happens to greater suns when they collaps at the end of their life syclus. A Gamma-ray blast or burst, visible as a spiraling globular disc and a gammaray which, if inside an atmosphere will be indicated by local aurora. Exactly what we might have seen here....

If the Sun had been meeting the cone at an angle of 42 degrees the people of North Norway would see the rainbow effect. However, the sun is at +/-90 degrees of the "gas plume" and it's light isn't found in the rainbow too easilly, it's aurora, caused by electrons emitting photons travelling back to Earthed status in the nitrogen atoms it has "excited". as you put it.

[edit on 12/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


Wow. No, the spiral was curved, meaning it can't be a gamma-ray burst. You can post any other nonsense you want, but it doesn't change the fact you are simply wrong. 10D? Give me a break. This is the Science & Technology forum - please stop spamming it with your new-age nonsense.

reply to post by davesidious


Hehe, so ten dimentions is new age in your world. You haven't been taking many extra courses in math and physics I see. In math we often need more than three dimentions to calculate different things. For instance in moving far through 4D time-space one would have to bring in accelleration and even gravity as extra dimentions. In physics, well why don't you have a look at this one:



[edit on 13/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


Yes, but we don't need 10 dimensions to explain what we saw. 4 will do perfectly. You have yet to show how what we saw can't be explained by a rocket exhaust being illuminated by the sun. You tried, but failed.

reply to post by davesidious


I'm not debunking anything here, but can you produce even the slightest evidence, let's say a photograph or movieclip, showing what was seen and is refered to as the Norway Spiral. Show me one such spiral caused by a rocket alone. I'm especially looking for how this appeared all of a sudden, to stay virtually unchanged allthough winds in this part of the world can be rather strong and would have distorted any given fumes, gasses or smoke, and after a while it faded out rather quickly with a growing black spot from center and out. I feel there are too many inconcistencies to the missile story to alone deliver a good enough explanation. Are you a spook or are you simply just ranting away here for different, more natural reasons?

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


We've been over that. Basic Newtonian laws of motion demand that a rocket venting from lateral points, rotating, will cause a perfect spiral. There are no winds in space. Where the blue trail enters the dense atmosphere, you can see the cloudy white smoke being blown by the wind. The black spot in the centre is merely space being visible after the illuminated ejecta moves out of the way. The only inconsistencies are with your knowledge and understanding of the event, not the event itself.

Please read the threads you post in before posting, as your questions have been answered many, many times.

It was a rocket.

reply to post by davesidious


Well, you would need a rocket to send a weapon up into the ionosphere, wouldn't you?



The image above is what a spiral caused by a missile going haywire. As you see there is only one arm to the spiral, but in the Norway Spiral there are infact many arms, and the structure is so dense and symetric that to say that there is any connection here at all is bad news. Show me one single picture which shows something even remotely close to the Norway Spiral. One tiny little picture, and I'll rest my case.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


Wow. One photo does not, and indeed can not, depict all missiles failing.

That was a Trident, and it failed in dense atmosphere. You seem to be suggesting that because I can find a photo of an Elephant on the internet, that penguins don't exist. Brilliant.

As I've already said, you'd save yourself (and me) a lot of time if you'd just read the threads in which you spam. We have covered this before, at great length.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

I've read your posts and while I can understand that you have a personal hypothesis that you believe may explain the Norway event, I have to say that I don't see much validity or evidence in your assumptions.

davesidious is perfectly correct (and backed up by much analysis) that the event was almost certainly linked to and originated with the launch of a Russian Bulava missile on that morning. The evidence is overwhelming in favour of a missile. We have a clearly observable exhaust plume within the lower atmosphere ... we have advanced warning from the Russians themselves of a missile test about to commence ... we have a clearly defined missile flight trajectory that covers every section of the event from beginning to end.
Even the curve of the blue spiral itself follows the trajectory perfectly and linking it to a missile is a far simpler explanation than trying to force fit gamma rays and invoking n-dimensional physics into the scenario. Davesidious and myself recently had a similar ongoing 'discussion' with the EISCAT proponents who tried everything they could to force fit exotic and unsubstantiated technology as their version of the event rather than simply face facts that it all revolved around a missile launch.

reply to post by tauristercus


Like I said earlier, you'd need a missile to bring a weapon up into the ionosphere, so I do agree there was a missile involved. What I don't buy, is that the missile alone was the reason for the spiral, and I don't think the missile malfunctioned, I believe it did it's job and that the Russians are rattling their chains due to NATO's plans of a rocket-shield along their borders among other things. Also since that day when this was observed, the weather turned from relatively mild conditions into extremely low temperatures we haven't seen up here for nearly 30 years, and the reason? Extremely cold winds coming in from Sibiria, Russia, which among other things have changed the direction of ocean currents, and brought us tons of snow and temperatures below -20, yes even -30 degrees and below that Celcius some places. And this has lasted since December 09.

Russia has warned earlier that they would start producing and testing nukes again, in Cold War scale, due to NATO's expansion eastward and the planned European missile-shield. And where did the Russians use to test their nukes during the Cold War? Western Sibiria. I believe the Norway Spiral was a test of some kind of new, Russian nuclear weapon, which can modify weather and make temperatures drop way below what's normal and change wind patterns and ocean currents thousands of kilometers away.

-----------------------------------------------------
Edit (added what's below this):

Recent articles about Russia's threats of a "New Cold War":

www.thediplomat.ro...
(A Romanian news paper article from earlier this month....)

en.rian.ru...
(a Russian news article from earlier this month....)

And for the record, an article about gamma ray bursts:

www.spacedaily.com...
(And an article on how a giant GRB from a collapsing star turning into a massive black hole. I sincerely believe that the Russians produced a minor gamma ray burst turning into a small and short lived black hole)

What happens if you produce a black hole within a planet's atmosphere? Temperature drop and change in wind patterns, exactly what seems to have happened here. The temperature inside the hole would be about zero Kelvin, and depending on it's magnetude and size this would lead to temperature drops over vast distances and changes in winds and currents, exactly what seems to have happened here. Coincidence? Me think noooot.

[edit on 14/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


You have no evidence. None. Just conjecture. Oodles of baseless conjecture.

A GRB would be sooo easy to detect. The energetic particles would be detectable across the northern hemisphere. But they weren't.

And what bloody use would an ICBM firing a gamma-ray burst back at the area from which it was launched be of any use at all? It's preposterous, and poorly-thought out.

reply to post by davesidious


Why is it so important to you that this was simply nothing to jump up about, and certainly nothing to look into? You produce dead wrong science to disproove my arguments, and when I correct your dead wrong bogus science, you do not even respond to this, but instead develop your arguments using completely new scenarios. Like this one. What is the chance of hitting the sub that probably fired this missile with a nano-sized directed gamma ray from 100 km altitude? P=0, since noone would like to destroy one's own ship after launching a missile. What is the chance of directing this ray into the Earth somewhere noone lives and with only sea on the other side of the Earth? P=~1.

If gamma ray bursts only directs a highly concentrated ray of chareged gamma photons along an infinitely narrow trajectory. No radiation to be measured unless you'd put up your measuring instruments straight into this, in this case, nano sized trajectory. Again and again, you debunk well known science taught at hi-school level, and also showing how incompetant you are in explaining what a gamma ray burst is, what causes aurora, and what might place a completely uniform spiral by bringing in bogus mis-leading "evidence" you have yet to come up with, and debunking like I said. You have still not been able to produce one single photo showing such a spiral being produced by a "beluga sized missile" able to reach near space.

If you are correct that this malfunctioning rocket did produce this perfectly symetric and concentric spiral, in the ionosphere, then let's look at what rockets are capableof doing in that altitude. What ammount of thrust would one have to push in in order to make a rocket that size change coarse, and produce this spiral of exhaust in near space? Can you please help me here? I'm kindof confused. And can you please find evidence that something like this has ever happened before?

Like I have explained the spiral looks to me like the effects of a chain reaction we see all over the universe, of matter turning into energy into a highly focused photon beal, like a gamma laser if you like, radiating from the center of the spiral for a few seconds, and then as time goes the emptiness produced by this reaction would then gather into a black hole, which if there is matter close by, would be filled after a short while, just like a vacuume would suck in particles until it would be equalised in pressure with it's surroundings.

We have technology to produce such a gamma ray burst, after all that was why we made the Large Hadron Collider. However, they fitted their collider with massive magnetic fields in order not to damage the machine or the world ouside of it. And instead of being aimed to educate and to be studied by scientists in a safe environment, I believe the Russians showed us what they were capable of. Now that any nuclear missiles can easily be traced and then destroyed using intercepting robots and missiles, why not start testing out death rays million times more powerful than normal lasers, they can trigger from their own airspace and which nothing can stop in time? Think about a fusion bomb where all the radiation is focused into one small beam, with close to no contamination outside the ray. Now, please come up with something even more hillarious than what you have shown until now. Come up with something beyond my knowledge, instead of making my feeble mind laugh and shake my head.

[edit on 14/3/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


If the spiral doesn't have to be straight, as you claim, then the detection of these excited particles would be possible outside of the straight line.

You have yet to show how Taur's evidence is wrong, and how a GRB can cause a non-linear blue spiral to form, which turns into a wispy white cloud in the dense atmosphere.

Debunk the current evidence, and then we can start talking about bizarre, exotic explanations like yours.

I'm here to deny ignorance, not give it a hug and a cup of tea.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

If the spiral doesn't have to be straight, as you claim, then the detection of these excited particles would be possible outside of the straight line.

You have yet to show how Taur's evidence is wrong, and how a GRB can cause a non-linear blue spiral to form, which turns into a wispy white cloud in the dense atmosphere.

Try capyuring a rifle shot through smoke, and capture it's trajectory on high speed camera. What happens? If you haven't seen Matrix take a look at the paper on ballistics below.

Bullets do not typically follow a straight line to the target. Rotational forces are in effect that keep the bullet off a straight axis of flight. These rotational effects are diagrammed below:

link: library.med.utah.edu...

Now we're not talking about bullets, but high energy, intensely rotating gamma quants (the typical waveforms used to illustrate wavelength and frequency are infact 2D models of a 4D "trajectory" of a helix kind). Since I've never seen a gamma ray burst in action, I can only guess that's what might been causing the blue helix. Allthough I may be dead wrong about it being aurora, and it is spilt fuel from the missile, then what. The reason I got into a heavy debate with you on aurora physics, was that you boasted knowledge about it without even once coming up with sound science, even debunking physics that has been known for more than a century and is usually taught at high-schools.

Debunk the current evidence, and then we can start talking about bizarre, exotic explanations like yours.

Just about as bizarre and exotic as the LHC or a means for Russian world dominance and a need for showing the West how far they have come in their nuclear tech during the years the physicists have been under ground testing out new concepts. The science and it's given technology has been known for quite a while. If studying man made black holes is possible at LHC, why wouldn't it be possible to create one outside a collider with no concern for it's effects, instead of using huge accellerators and magnetic fields to shield us from the energy outbursts?

Like I have said this is not really my area of whether interest nor expertise, but if you can make fire by hitting two rocks together, or even better a knife against flint, or matches, or a lighter... why the need for lightning strikes causing forest fires where fire can be harvested?

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


We're not talking about bullets but particles moving at the speed of light, as you yourself mentioned. There is no way particles from a gamma ray burst could deviate in their trajectory so far, and so quickly, as the blue spiral. It makes no sense.

Please show how the missile theory is incorrect. Then we can talk GRBs all you want. It is irrational to expend energy on such discussions when a much simpler explanation already exists, and is so far unchallenged.

reply to post by davesidious


Oh dear. I give up. You just won't stop your dissassembling of this proposed nuke, will you? Again I ask you: Why the hell is it so important to you to break down everything I have to say? And you accuse me of spamming... Wow.Not only did you destroy my thread about the other spiral we are witnessing via satellite in the Skagerrak, you just won't listen to other theories about what exactly may have happened in December 2009 in what used to be one of the world's largest nuke testing areas, after Russia has warned the West for years that they will relaunch their nuclear arms race and so on. I give up, now you'll have your chance of getting the last word which you have tried to do since I first posted this theory. Comeon, I know you can't hold it back....

Excellent , very well presented and the facts are very well put . Give one a new look at it that is not often found on any site including msm Kudos

I have read most of what is posted here and I would like to know what you guys think of this. I'm no scientist, but this looks like the most convincing argument I've seen and I do not think this guy is a scientist either, but can anyone here disprove what is in these videos?



www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

the-rabbits-hole.com...