Calculating the Spiral

      Thought you'd restore my fondness in this RS website did you?

      Nicely done!

      So, if it wasn't a missile (I never believed it was, anyway), what the heck was it?

 Red Collie--

 My first intuition was (also) of ET design.....perhaps foretelling of an astounding astronomical event in the near future.....

There is no such thing as chance; and what seems to us merest accident springs from the deepest source of destiny.

Friedrich Schiller (1759 - 1805)

Dear Seachanged and others,

Here is a page which shows over a dozen rocket exhaust plumes at high altitude:

http://www.moonglow.net/ccd/pictures/rocket/index.html

I can't find anything there which even remotely resembles the Norway spiral! If anyone can find even one example of a failed or intact rocket (missile) in all of modern history, which resembles the Norway spiral, then I will certainly consider that theory.

But if no previous example can be found, and we have to rely on some theoretical simulation from a computer graphics system, in order to "explain away" what was observed in a purely ad hoc fashion, then surely everyone would agree that the "failed rocket" theory seems doubtful?

when I speak of ET's ....I refer to the conscious universal force that flows thru the cosmos....not in particular little green men.

Failed missile launches are ...smelly..ugly..chaotic...etc.

This was a beautiful geometric design...a portent...(a cosmic code).... a divine symbol that has slipped through from another world.....perhaps having something to do with our own expansion process?

Dear Seachanged, Arash and others,

Yes, similar atmospheric phenomena have been seen before in China during the 1970s, or at Fatima in October 1917, but no one thinks that either of those two previous incidents could have been a "failed rocket".

No Russian submarine commander would test fire an unreliable intercontinental missle in the direction of Finland, Sweden and Norway for obvious political reasons!

The second pdf file by Arash reports how that particular Russian missle used solid-fuel propellants. Hence the big cloud which surrounded that constantly-spinning source had to be composed of secondary emissions such as "smoke". Yet it was spinning at roughly 700 mph, faster than any tornado. Really? How could such a thing be possible?

Thus, if you look at any previous video of a "failed missle", you never see the emitted smoke moving really fast, especially in an 18-ring sprial! Always it disperses into some sort of stationary cloud, as shown in a link to other missle tests given above.

In summary, we were lied to, and it wasn't a "failed Russian missle". Yet it was clearly a well-target projectile of some kind, not apparently of Russian origin. I do not claim to know who made it, or why they sent it up.

Yes, various interpretations are possible, but if you look closely at the video evidence, anyone can see that the "smoke" part of that spiral is not gradually moving outward per se, as would be expected for a "missle exhuast", but rather is rotating by about one turn per second in a tight, well-defined spiral:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNh8b_0elw&feature=related

So that is why Arash Amini wrote his brief analysis, and we are grateful to Amy Baczkowski, David Wilcox and others for bringing his insightful work to our attention.

I can understand why such observations would upset many people, including Seachanged for example, because of what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance". You look at the King of Hearts in a card deck, and it is black rather than red!

That makes you feel uncomfortable. Everyone feels most comfortable when they can relate new things to old well-understood things that they already understand. Yet as Arash writes, based on physical logic, that does not seem to be what is happening here.

      Although I don’t buy everything being sold by Hoagland and his Enterprise Mission, the following link (also posted above by Gryphon) attempts to explain what might have caused the Norway Spiral. http://www.enterprisemission.com/Norway-Message.htm

      Thanks Arash, for your convincing position, and for visiting RS to keep us up to date!

Bunkbuster Emeritus -- www.jamesoberg.com

Posted on Above Top Secret -- co-posted here for good manners:

Hoagland had one question we've now (at ats) found the answer to -- why the spiral was only observed in the NW Norway (Tromso region) area. Weather satellite images show clearly that the rest of the region was overcast that morning, and as you move eastwards, you move into sunrise and bright skies that would mask any such visual cues. But I'm still curious about what aircraft pilots or passengers in NW Russia and Finland might have been able to see.

I was always reluctant to connect the spiral's formation to the official claim of the third stage malfunction, since spirals have been reported and drawn by witnesses in the past (hand-held camcorders weren't all that common in the 1980s, you have to admit). So I suggested that the spiral was a 'feature', not a 'bug', of some missile operation [I do not dispute the claim the third stage failed, just that the failure was the instigator of the spiral formation].

Discussion at an arms control wonk website suggests that for solid fuel rockets, which cannot be shut off in flight, excess thrust can be 'dumped' through opening side ports along the stage and thrusting sideways. Rolling the stage evens out any course disturbances. A spiral, even a double spiral (when there are two opposite-facing thrust dump ports), is the result under rare solar illumination conditions.

Was this launch a candidate for 'thrust dumping'? Yes, since if you measure the programmed range from launch to Kamchatka, you see it is a LOT shorter than the claimed maximum range. The solid-fuel rocket stages have a pre-loaded amount of total thrust due to their construction, and for shorter-than-maximum test missions, some of that thrust has to be dumped at the end of ascent.

This inquiry continues -- but underscores a point I've stressed for years, that 'UFO reports' from the USSR and neighboring countries have contained highly-sensitive performance clues to their space and missile weapons system performance and test results. Of course the CIA had BETTER be interested in such reports -- since the 'UFO' identification is a camouflage for technical intelligence data on Soviet (and now Russian) nuclear weapons.

As for Amini's math, it still is pathetic (I majored in math in undergraduate and graduate studies, so my eyes don't 'glaze over' with shock and awe when somebody's pulling a snow job), and he needs a long heart-to-heart with his college career counselor if the report is typical of his physics capabilities.

Bunkbuster Emeritus -- www.jamesoberg.com

Mehere, thanks for your comment focusing on specific aspects of this undeniably extraordinary set of videos. Getting specific, as you did, is a constructive way to identify the origin of differing interpretations.

"The thing is, I would llike to know , why the Russians would be testing so called weapons of mass destruction albiet minus warheads over neighbouring states?"

A common question -- based on a common misperception. Seeing the spiral in the direction of the Norway mountains leads one to assume it is directly over the mountains (as a cloud, seen there, would be -- that's what our normal perception has trained us to interpret), when actually it is far BEYOND the mountains and high over the White Sea. The Hoagland analysis linked by several helpful posters, above, demonstrates this actual geometry.

"...when the American head of state was visiting a nearby nation!." Actually, of course, it wasn't simo, but still, it was close in time. But Russia has been testing Bulava missiles for several years now, at random times of the year, and had pre-announced the general time and location of this launch too -- and with enough 'trials', coincidences happen that can be over-interpreted.

"...but if the thing was indeed a rocket that had failed, why did it not visibly burn up once gravity had reclaimed it?. Enough people watched it 'during its spin' and would have been watching for a while after."

A rocket on such an intercontinental flight path -- a trajectory -- would, after the initial rocket firing lasting 4 or 5 minutes, fall through space under gravity's attraction but remain in flight beyond the atmosphere for ten or fifteen minutes, far longer than the period observed.

But you bring up the important point that an analyst should try to determine the time line of the observed events, then compare them to the official flight plan of the missile -- something i'm still working on but am open to assistence with.

Satellites slipping back into the atmosphere do indeed burn up, often spectacularly, and from time to time sparking UFO reports from startled ground (and air) witnesses who underestimate the range and speed, get confused over the directions and paths, and add in coincidental environmental occurrences to weave an often perplexing and exciting UFO report. There are numerous examples of this in the literature.

"Or is it possible that this was either an astronomical event, or the testing of some kind of high altitude test aircraft."

Keeping all possibilities open early on, rather than jumping to a favorite must-have-been, is a sine qua non of responsible and productive investigation. That's why imaginative options such as yours are helpful -- they help define the questions needed to differentiate between potential options once enough data is gathered and verified.

"It just seems given the Russian preference like anyone on the planet to have good PR to admit such a failure of a high profile defence system, and in light of the so called western defence then to keep quiet and deny all knowledge might have been a better idea!."

The Russian politics of the Bulava missile program are Byzantine, worthy of the Kremlin. Hard-line communist opponents of Putin accuse his government, not without some justification, of allowing the defense industry to decay, leading to a string of such missile failures. Nobody in Moscow any longer has the power to keep the lid on such events, especially when seen my thousands of witnesses.

It's like the famous Soviet 'UFO flaps' in the 1960s and 1970s, caused by top secret Soviet military space and missile activities but allowed by the government to be 'interpreted' as UFOs to camouflage them. Most spectacular Soviet-era UFO stories fall into this category, and the delicious irony is that Western ufologists who continue to insist such stories are 'true UFOs' are the last agents of the long-dead Soviet coverup campaign to divert their public from truly understanding what they were seeing.

I wouldnt doubt that the government has the ability to create something like this. Maybe they just wanna distract all us wishy washy new agey types (me included)??? Just a thought. I hope it was something mysticle but i also know that the big boys like to screw with our heads.

I hope that you can find your balance between the mystic and mundane,
I hope that you can navigate your way between the sacred and profane.