Atlantis Online
October 16, 2019, 03:04:52 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: 'Europe's oldest city' found in Cadiz
http://mathaba.net/rss/?x=566660
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

the Norway Spiral event of 9 December, 2009

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the Norway Spiral event of 9 December, 2009  (Read 919 times)
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2010, 10:40:05 pm »

The following table summarizes the altitudes of each spiral event point.
Points B through F show the altitudes of these points as they evolve over time.

Table1


Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2010, 10:40:27 pm »

Image30

Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2010, 10:41:30 pm »

Image31

Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2010, 10:42:10 pm »

Image32

Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2010, 10:42:39 pm »

Image33

Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2010, 10:43:14 pm »

The following image is a summary of the the various calculated distances, altitudes, etc of points B through F as they evolved through time.
Notice that points E & F which represent 2 phases of the spiral dissipation actually occur well above the atmosphere and definitely within the orbital parameters of the space shuttle.

Image34

Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2010, 10:44:06 pm »

All images of the event show the spiral being observed in full frontal view ... in other words, the spiral was seen with very little skewing, distortion and definitely not edge on.
But here we have a problem especially as evident from the Skjervoy location.
At this location, the trajectory of the missile is approximately NNE and crossing the observers viewpoint from right to left. This trajectory is well established and not open to dispute. Therefore we need to find a mechanism that will allow the full frontal creation and viewing of the spiral from the observers point of view.

With the missile crossing from right to left, the missile must be in one of two distinct attitudes whilst in flight:
1 - The missile is stable and following the determined trajectory. The missile will also have spin imparted to assist with inflight stability. This missile is essentially rotating around it's axis.
2 - The missile is unstable and tumbling end over end. There will also be residual rotation around its axis.


The following image shows the missile in stable mode along its trajectory and rotating around it's axis. The two "blowouts" have been indicated in red and positioned 180 degrees apart as conjectured.
But if this is correct, then any spiral that forms can only be viewed by a Skjervoy observer from edge on ... almost 90 degrees displaced from what was actually observed.

Image35

Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2010, 10:44:47 pm »

The following image shows scenario two whereby the missile has lost stability and is tumbling end over end.

The first problem here being that if the missile is tumbling, then it would be almost impossible for it to continue following its original trajectory as thrust vectors would be constantly changing ... and consequently its path would likewise be changing ... and yet as can be readily seen from the previously presented overlayed images (Image6), the spiral path adhered exactly to the established trajectory throughout the entire evolution of the spiral event.
The second problem is that a combination of the 3 vectors comprising the forward motion, end over end tumbling and rotation around the missiles axis, would prevent the formation of a near perfect spiral structure. Any spiral structure forming would very quickly lose stability and integrity.

Image36

Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2010, 10:45:24 pm »

So the inevitable conclusion is that a stable, front on viewed spiral would be impossible to create and maintain over an extended period of time based on the possible missile flight attitude modes.



Finally, one observation that I believe has not been made by or commented on by anyone so far.
If we take a look at the Skjervoy image (Image3) that shows the initial stage of spiral dissipation, we see what at 1st glance appears to be an expanding circular region of darkness. It has been suggested by others that this is nothing more than the background dark sky beginning to show through again as the spiral material begins to fade away or dissipate towards the end of the event.

However, closer inspection appears to suggest that the dark void is not simply a 2 dimensional disk shape but may in fact be a 3 dimensional dark "globe" structure. The primary indication of its 3d structure is evidenced by the blue funnel shaped structure not completely covering the dark void from edge to edge, but instead apparently having a well defined boundary that stops far short of reaching the edge of the void.
You could liken it to an example where you have a flexible tube with a wide opening into which you're trying to force a much bigger spherical shaped object ... think of trying to force a bowling ball into a flexible tube that can stretch only so far ... the bowling ball will get stuck only part way into the tube opening after it has been stretched to its maximum. The important part of this analogy is that every part of the tube opening is in contact with the surface of the larger globe ... exactly as seen in that Skjervoy image.

I've taken that image and to show more clearly what I'm talking about, have reversed the colours and increased saturation levels. As can be readily seen, the funnel rim appears to be in complete contact with the globes surface but without touching the edges of the void.

Image37

Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2010, 10:45:43 pm »

Summary

Based on published observer images and using Google Earth, it was possible to exactly locate each of the observers positions at the time of the event and to plot these locations on Google Earth. Using these plotted locations, it was possible to pinpoint by "triangulation" the original location/position of various stages within the evolution of the spiral phenomena with very good accuracy.

These plotted origins were immediately commensurate with the theory of a "failed" Russian missile test conducted in the early hours of 9 Dec, 2009 from a location within the White Sea missile test area. To add weight to this corroboration, the origin points could all be plotted with high accuracy on a great circle track which when extended from the White Sea location, proceeded in the direction of, and ended directly within the Kamchatka Penninsula missile target range.

Based on the calculated trajectory, it becomes immediately apparent that at no point in time does the missile leave Russian territory and most definitively does NOT enter Norwegian air space or territory. This is in complete agreement with the lack of official Norwegian, Swedish, etc government comments on any incursions by the Russian missile test. In fact, the trajectory indicates conclusively that the missile was travelling away from Norway and that its entire trajectory would remain completely over Russian territory.

Being the most detailed, the Skjervoy images were subjected to mathematical analysis to obtain reasonable estimates of angular measurements, altitudes and diameters pertaining to various stages or "points" of the spiral evolution.
The conclusion obtained indicates that the majority of the event took place at an extremely high altitude ... most certainly above the atmosphere and into low orbit space. The final stages of the event apparently reached an altitude at which the space shuttle operates.

Finally, potential positional attitudes that the missile could have taken as it traversed the Skjervoy skies were analysed and the conclusion reached that there was no apparent physical explanation that could satisfactorily make use of a "conjectured fuel ejection blowout" on opposite sides of the missile to produce and maintain a near perfect spiral for a period of time.
Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2010, 10:46:07 pm »

In conclusion, it is agreed that the event was to a high degree of probability, triggered by the launch of a Russian missile.
It is agreed that to a high degree of probability, that EISCAT and similar HAARP type technology was not employed and was not responsible for the spiral event.

Analysis indicates that contrary to "official explanations", the spiral event was not apparently triggered by a 3rd stage failure or malfunction and that the spiral event itself was not a random and unexpected side effect of the missile launch.
The emerging conclusion is that the series of Bulava missile launches over the last few years and their significant "failure rates" may in fact be a cover for the testing and observation of either a radical new propulsion technology or for the testing and observation of a new defense technology.
Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #41 on: February 08, 2010, 10:46:26 pm »

One should bear in mind that Russia has over 50 years of tested and proven missile launch, navigation and targeting technology incorporated into its missile fleet ... so the continuous failures of well understood and trialled launch technology is somewhat inexplicable. Also consider the fact that the Bulava missile series is a derivative of the highly successful Topol M missile series and one would expect the experience and technology that created the Topols would be incorporated into the Bulava series ... the Bulava's were NOT created from scratch.
Also Russia has made known publicly that the Bulava series will have unprecedented features and abilities, the most notable being its ability to perform evasive maneuvering, mid-course countermeasures, decoys and a warhead fully shielded against both physical and electromagnetic pulse damage. In fact, the Bulava is designed to be capable of surviving a nuclear blast at a minimum distance of 500 metres.

So, would it be not inconceivable for Russia to try to divert global attention away from any new technology testing by claiming multiple and successive failures in something as elementary as the solid fueled propulsion system ? Would public amusement and ridicule be worth the price to pay for the ability to covertly test radical new technology with almost minimal scrutiny ?

I think so ....


[Edit: to show a space view perspective of what the spiral event may have looked like if viewed from above the atmosphere.
Note that I have scaled the spirals so that the exhaust/plume is in alignment with the launch site point; and that each individual spiral event centre corresponds with the trajectory points marked on the White Sea launch area.
Report Spam   Logged
Major Weatherly
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4847



« Reply #42 on: February 08, 2010, 10:47:15 pm »



http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread539943/pg1
Report Spam   Logged
Keith Ranville
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2387

*


« Reply #43 on: February 09, 2010, 12:53:24 am »

I thought that was amazing. I wonder why the ruskies do space lift offs at night..?
Report Spam   Logged
Rayelle
Full Member
***
Posts: 2


« Reply #44 on: February 09, 2010, 08:55:08 am »

What a cool effect.  Are the Russians really responsible for this?
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy