Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Point of No Return

 

The holes might not be random - as I've said before, it's far from unthinkable that the third stage maneuvering rockets fired early, which would certainly account for the spiral. And being "next to each other" might make it spin, it all depends on the angle of the ejection.

In davesidious's opinion as well as mine, we're firmly entrenched in our belief (backed up by considerable data and analysis) that there is absolutely NO doubt whatsoever that the initiation of the entire spiral was definitely caused by a Russian Bulava missile test.

However, as for the creation and maintenance of the main spiral itself, at this point we diverge.
Having said that, I can totally understand where davesidious is coming from and his explanation for the spiraling effect as being the direct result of 3rd stage spin combined with the ejection of some kind of material from within the 3rd stage and resulting in the observed spiral artifact.

On the surface, this would appear to be a perfectly valid explanation and add to it the fact that it occurred above the atmosphere (in space) with diminished gravity and friction, then throw in Newton and it looks as if we have the answer. Initially, I tended to also lean in this direction as the obvious explanation ... but the deeper I looked, the less obvious that answer seemed to become.

Ok, I think at this point we need to do another analysis of the main spiral and see if we either confirm or refute the above explanation.



Let's start by trying to determine if there actually were any leaks obvious in the 3rd stage fuselage as 'officially' claimed and if so, how many and how are they separated, as this will have a considerable bearing on whether a spiral shape can even be created.
Obviously if there are no leaks, well then, no spiral would be created ... goes without saying. If there is 1 leak, might still get something looking like a spiral. If we have 2 leaks, should produce a good spiral. 3 leaks or more and I think whatever shape is created, would not look much like a spiral.

I think we can all agree on what I've just said ... as it's fairly elementary.

So we now need to confirm how many 'creation' points appear to be active in the main spiral ... to do this, I've searched thru all the available photos and settled on the following 2 as giving the best view of what may be happening at the center of the spiral:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42923020399f.jpg[/atsimg]

As is quite clear and obvious, the spiral effect is DEFINITELY being produced by 'something' being ejected at 2 very distinct points. Also, these 2 points appear to be diametrically opposite one another which is only to be expected for the best shaped spiral effect.

So far so good ... we have 2 ejection points and they're opposite each other ... nothing so far to discredit the 'mechanical failure' scenario.

Having confirmed that 'something' is being dispersed, we now need to analyze exactly how that dispersion effect would appear to an observer on the ground. Does it look like a spiral shape to the observer or something totally different ?

Ok, before I continue, we know from my earlier analysis that because we have an obvious trajectory that the spiral event followed, it immediately tells us that whatever created the spiral effect (failed 3rd stage or some other mechanism), that it was NOT stationary in the sky but was moving at considerable speed relative to the observers. So in our continuing analysis, we most certainly have to factor in this speed component as this will have a significant contribution to the eventual shape created.

Now if we continue with our assumption that the 3rd stage was responsible, we now have to ask ourselves what possible flight orientations could that 3rd stage find itself in. If you think about it, there are essentially only 2 likely scenarios ... either the 3rd stage is leaking but has maintained flight stability OR the 3rd stage is leaking but has NOT maintained flight stability, in other words, the 3rd stage is pitching and rolling in an uncontrolled manner ... we call this 'tumbling'.

Can anyone think of any other potential attitude configuration the 3rd stage could have found itself in ? I can't. It's either stable or it's not !

Lets now look at both these 2 flight modes in turn ... we'll start with the leaking but stable mode.

In the stable mode, it really makes no difference to our analysis whether main thrust was on or off as the 3rd stage would in either case continue to follow the trajectory it was on for the brief few mins of the event (Newtons Law).
So having disregarded the thrust vector, this leaves us with 2 remaining vectors to take into account ... the predictable rotational vector imparted along the main axis of the 3rd stage to provide stability (similar in principle to the spinning bullet leaving a gun) ... and the unpredictable thrust/rotational vectors resulting from material being ejected from the 2 ejection points.

Now to maintain forward flight stability, we need to assume that both ejection points are ejecting material perpendicular to the flight direction, otherwise unbalanced forces will come into play and have a significant detrimental effect on spiral creation.

The above is a lot to take in, especially if I'm not making myself particularly clear and understood ... so what say it's time for a pic that shows the 2 main translational vectors we need to consider !

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5906cfd3bd03.jpg[/atsimg]


Lets now take a look at the 2nd scenario where the 3rd stage is still following the trajectory but is in unstable mode ... it's essentially tumbling.

Now tumbling can be simple or complex.
With simple, the tumbling occurs essentially only over 2 axis e.g. forward tumbling with head over tail ... and predictable.
With complex tumbling, the tumbling occurs over all 3 axis and essentially chaotic and unpredictable.

We're going to assume the simpler of the 2 tumbling modes during our continuing analysis.

Here's another pic showing the many vectors in play during unstable (tumbling) mode:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/46047b613018.jpg[/atsimg]

Obviously based on the above, it can clearly be seen that out of the 2 main flight attitude modes that the Bulava may have found itself in, the simplest of the 2 modes would be the one most likely to have any chance of producing a stable spiral effect.


Now, lets go back to the simpler mode and try to work out what sort of 'effect' might be produced.

Let me remind you once again, that from the observers point of view (especially at Skjervoy), the trajectory came in from the observers right, moved across the observers field of view, then continued of to the observers left. This immediately tells us that in simple mode, the Bulava must have been presenting its entire length as it crossed in front of the observer ... this therefore implies that the 'leaks' would have travelled either towards OR away from the observer (as the Bulava spun along its axis).
This being the case, that will result in any spiral effect being created, only being visible EDGE ON from the observers location. No question or debate about it ... just simple geometry.

Here's the 'edge-on' view overlayed the actual 'full on' view at Skjervoy:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/98bc084a2682.jpg[/atsimg]

You can argue all you like but there is NO WAY that the 3rd stage flying in the above configuration could produce an effect that would be visible full on ... only an EDGE-ON view would be possible for the Skjervoy observer.

Continued next post

Continued from previous post

In the previous edge-on demonstration pic, you can assume that that pic was a 'snap shot' taken at a specific moment of time as the 3rd stage was traveling along its trajectory.
But in actuality, that edge-on effect would be far more complex because we also need to take into account the speed and physical movement of the 3rd stage from moment to moment. The true shape of the 'effect' would actually be a 'stretched spiral' seen edge-on ... similar to stretching a spring and looking at it from the side.
Irrespective, no matter what shape was created, it could ONLY be seen edge-on ... completely contradicting the photos taken at Skjervoy of a full-on spiral effect.

We're not talking complex maths or geometry here, guys ... my simple analysis CLEARLY debunks the 'leaking propellant' explanation as being responsible for the main spiral creation.
And that debunk was done with the 'simpler' of the 2 possible flight modes. Imagine how much more difficult it would become trying to create a stable spiral using leaking propellant with those leaks moving constantly in 3 dimensions because of tumbling ... just isn't going to happen !

Here's a pic of a tumbling (in only 2 dimensions - head over tail) 3rd stage overlayed over the same Skjervoy photo.
I haven't even tried to show what the resulting 'effect' would look like due to the many chaotic and unpredictable parameters. But essentially, a tumbling 3rd stage is just NOT going to produce a STABLE pattern of ANYTHING !.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6048ca664526.jpg[/atsimg]


Look, people ... I really don't know how many more times I have to emphasize the following ...

The Bulava missile test WAS responsible for the creation of the observed spiral effect. However, the spiral effect was NOT an unintentional or accidental side-effect of a 3rd stage failure.
Rather, the purpose of the Bulava test WAS to lift some new technology into low space and test this new technology ... which apparently WAS successful. Upon test completion, the Bulava continued along the trajectory towards Kamchatka ... explaining why no self-destruct occurred and no observed faulty missile seen to be falling out of the sky.

I realize it's hard to get your heads around it but testing of new, previously unheard of, undocumented and top secret technology is the NORM where the military is involved ... and such tests have been conducted as long as militaries have existed ... which is a heck of a long time.

Just think of this as a BLACK OPS project .. but instead of the USofA, it was Russian military instead.

Just thought of an example ... back in 1961, the Russians test detonated the 'biggest' nuclear device constructed up to that time ... the 'Big Ivan' as they named it ('Big Bomba' in the west).
To many people in the west, such Russian technology or even capability was totally and completely unprecedented and unknown ... unknown, that is until the resulting rumbles from the explosion started to be felt around the world !

Do not for one moment discount the possibility that there was some kind of new Russian technology involved ... technology that was being incorporated into the Bualava's well publicized new abilities that Russia proudly claims will very shortly make it well and truly the ICBM leader.

reply to post by tauristercus


Lovely work, as usual.

I have a slight issue with your assumption that the missile was travelling parallel to the field of view of the observer, from right to left. Yes, that might be the case, but couldn't the following be true, too?

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.

I'm all for the black ops explanation, but I seriously doubt a sub-launched ICBM would be the weapon of choice for launching payloads into space, simply due to the size limitations of sub-launched ICBMs when compared to ground-launched ICBMs. Sub-launched ICBMs have more of their size dedicated to the ability to escape a submerged sub, and travel through the water, before firing their main booster and getting into space. It seems the Russians would be engaging in a rather strange methodology to put a secret payload into space that way.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Lovely work, as usual.

I have a slight issue with your assumption that the missile was travelling parallel to the field of view of the observer, from right to left. Yes, that might be the case, but couldn't the following be true, too?

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.

dave, I fully understand where you're coming from and your question gave me pause for thought.

So when in doubt ... make a pic ... so we can get a visual feel regarding your question

Ok, in the following image, it's quite clear that from the Skjervoy observers point of view, that the trajectory of the event across his field of view was essentially perpendicular. So it would appear that the trajectory didn't deviate to any significant degree and begin moving closer to or away from the observer.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4d776ec45f44.jpg[/atsimg]

In the 1st image, I've shown the trajectory extended along the great circle route to Kamchatka.
In the 2nd image, I've shown a closeup of the trajectory segment visible to the Skjervoy observer. Note in both images that the trajectory essentially follow the equivalent of a 'straight line' from right to left across the observers field of view with virtually no sideways movement towards or away from the observer.

I'm all for the black ops explanation, but I seriously doubt a sub-launched ICBM would be the weapon of choice for launching payloads into space, simply due to the size limitations of sub-launched ICBMs when compared to ground-launched ICBMs. Sub-launched ICBMs have more of their size dedicated to the ability to escape a submerged sub, and travel through the water, before firing their main booster and getting into space. It seems the Russians would be engaging in a rather strange methodology to put a secret payload into space that way.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

My opinion is that the Russian military were testing some new technology in low space orbit and the reason they used the Bulava was simply because this particular technology was being designed specifically for the Bulava ... whether as defensive technology or offensive technology.
Don't forget the reports coming from the Russian military itself where they're essentially boasting to the world that this Bulava missile class is going to outperform ANY OTHER missile system and missile system defence of any other nation on the planet ... including that of the USofA.

The only way they could possibly pull of such an incredible feat is if they have developed (or are developing) new technology.

The edition of Vesti Nedeli on the 2 October had quoted a senior naval commander, Adm Mikhail Zakharenko, the man in charge of the Bulava project, as saying that footage of the firing was being kept secret because of the missile’s uniqueness.

www.missilethreat.com...

A word should be said here about the steady stream of reports—coming from President Putin to Sergey Ivanov all the way down—that Russia has supposedly devised new and “invulnerable” strategic systems which have been said to be deployed on the new Topol-M and Bulava missiles. One should take these reports seriously, and if new strategic weapons have been devised, we should consider what sort of strategic defenses are necessary to counter them.

www.missilethreat.com...

from disclosure tv one guy thought of the phenomenon


www.youtube.com...


is there a missile shield in norway ? sweden or finland

www.globalsecuritynewswire.org...

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...

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?

I'm not sure if I'm even correct in my approach here, but perhaps if I was, this could help to explain away what has long been the result of an optical illusion of sorts...

Since most of us weren't there to witness this in person, we've had to form our opinions relying mostly on photos that were: (a) shot at night using long exposure times, and (b) taken from distances of hundreds of kilometers up and away from the photographers...

It's been brought up many times that these long exposure times will distort what we're seeing, which in this particular case has given the appearance that the (white) spiral was much larger and more perfectly concentric than it actually was... So right off the bat, from the moment we first laid eyes on that pic from Skjervoy, we had a distorted and thereby an unrealistic view of what this thing actually looked like...

Couple that with the natural distortion that occurs when we view certain 3D spaces within a 2D plane (because we lose depth of field) with the great distances involved; and you can begin to understand how our minds might perceive things incorrectly.. (think MC Escher- he was a master of manipulating depth of field, and playing tricks with your mind)

And it's this very issue that I feel is the root of the debate we've all found ourselves to be engaged in regarding this event...

It's been a complete misconception for some, albeit through no fault of their own - of course this all my opinion and could be completely wrong

[edit on 3-3-2010 by PhotonEffect]

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Wolfenz, the receiver can actually transmit. Don't let them convince you otherwise.

en.wikipedia.org...

a missile shield may be look what i found EM


from the Alaska Conservation Foundation, spring of 1996
Popular Science magazine.
Copyright 1995 Times Mirror Magazine, Inc.

would they lie ? ^^^ i would not think so

snippit

A 1990 internal document obtained by POPULAR SCIENCE says the program's overall goal is to "control ionospheric processes in such a way as to greatly improve the performance of military command, control, and communications systems." It provides a description of the following applications:

# Injecting high-frequency radio energy into the ionosphere to create huge, extremely low frequency (ELF) virtual antennas used for earth-penetrating tomography peering deep beneath the surface of the ground by collecting and analyzing reflected ELF waves beamed down from above.
# Heating regions of the lower and upper ionosphere to form virtual "lertses" and "mirrors" that can reflect a broad range of radio frequencies far over the horizon to detect stealthy cruise missiles and aircraft.
# Generating ELF radio waves in the ionosphere to communicate across large distances with deeply submerged submarines.

And, patent documents filed during an earlier research effort that evolved into the HAARP program outline further military applications of ionospheric-heating technology:

# Creating a "full global shield" that would destroy ballistic missiles by overheating their electronic guidance systems as they fly through a powerful radio-energy field.
# Distinguishing nuclear warheads from decoys by sensing their elemental composition.
# Manipulating local weather.

the source
arcticcircle.uconn.edu...

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Tue Mar 9 2010 by Jbird]

I heard somewhere that it could be tied to the firing up of the Large Hadron Collider.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


PhotonEffect (and davesidious)

If you have no objections then I'll jump over to my last thread "Norway spiral : Case closed" and respond to your questions there as I believe that's the more appropriate thread.
I think that we've put closure to the EISCAT hypothesis and I believe this thread should be specific to ongoing EISCAT related posts only.

reply to post by tauristercus


Perfect! That shut me up

Yup, I totally understand where you are coming from, and you've won a supporter. It does seem entirely likely that this could one of the new counter-measures they talk about.

Could you show us what the trajectory you've plotted there looks like from Skjervoy, including the discerned altitudes across the trajectory line? Is that too much to ask for? Please tell me if it is - I'm not trying to boss you around or make you dance like a puppet, but I think that'd be really useful to the discussion.

As always, awesome work. You are a true credit to ATS.

reply to post by davesidious


Nice to see that you to, can change your mind.

Good job, I'm not trying to be condescending, I mean it.

reply to post by Point of No Return


Don't let it surprise you! Seriously, I am (and always am, as best I can) being open-minded. If someone can convince me, I'll be their biggest cheerleader. Taur has made fantastic points again and again and again, all backed up by evidence (and when not, clearly stated as such). I don't know how I can't rationally agree with his fantastic work.

I haven't made my mind up before entering this discussion, so there's no reason for me to not change my mind about anything. Heck, if Team EISCAT can convince me they're right (and Taur wrong), I'll gladly be a member!

Thanks for the kind words

reply to post by tauristercus


Good point -

I'll repost in the appropriate thread, although having read over your last post in reply to davesidious, there's no disputing that had the rocket maintained its intended course straight to Kamchatka it would've almost certainly been straight right to left from the viewers perspective.... so thanks for clarifying that

Oh and those 2 articles you linked.... very interesting...

Could help explain why Russia denied any involvement initially... just a thought

reply to post by Wolfenz


Very interesting Wolfenz. I will definitely look at that. Thanks.

reply to post by Wolfenz


Oh yeah...I've seen that before. It goes really well with the many HAARP patents that currently exist. You should look those up. The patents tell what HAARP can do in detail.

Also, You should check this out. Although this show is a little sketchy, the information about HAARP is pretty thorough. Also, the designer of HAARP's son talks about its capabilities.

Very interesting stuff here:
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 9-3-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


How about sticking to scientific sources, instead of crack-pot conspiracy shows?

Or doesn't the fact that there is no scientific evidence that HAARP is anything other than it claims to be tell you anything?

This is the science and technology forum. It would help the discussion, and your credibility, if you could stick to science and technology, not whatever paranoid idiocy Jesse Ventura is pulling out his butt this week.

Hint: children of scientists are rarely the best versed to discuss their parent's work.

I think you need to fire about a million missiles before ones get mechincal failure like the norway spiral. (2 opposite leaks)
Also if Russia fired a rocket over norway to its target.. it would never get on mainstream news.
Why would EISCAT not admit to what they made?
I believe that is the most important question.