1. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    In December 2009, an unprecedented spiral appeared over Norway.


    So was it really a failed Bulova missile launch or was it caused by EISCAT, the European version of HAARP?

    Despite early denials that they had launched a missile, the Russians quickly recanted and admitted responsibility and a failed launch. So, why would the Russians be so willing to accept responsibility, (and embarrassment), if they were not responsible?

    But significantly, the phenomenon appeared near Tromso, which is also the location of EISCAT. if the missile malfunctioned over the White Sea as reported, it should have been visible in northern Russia, Finland and Sweden as well as Norway and yet no sightings were reported in Finland or Russia.

    Further, since then there have been many similar spirals worldwide, showing up both visually and on radar.

    Australia appears to have the best documented examples of this.

    This is undeniably an interesting phenomenon which is apparently becoming more and more prevalent, (although there are some very dubious instances). Also, is it linked to at least some of the strange noises which have been heard worldwide of late?

    Below is an interesting paper on the spiral's origin, trajectory and dimensionswhich actually tracks the source to the Russian White Sea.


    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  2. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  3. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    The Norway spiral did not appear on radar.

    Australian event was not reported visually.

    So, why do you think they are related?

    The Australian event looks really hokey- it looks fake in my humble opinion.

    Can you point to any similar visual spirals like the Norway event? Why do you claim there have been "many similar" spirals? These were over 3 years ago...surely you can show more recent examples?

    It is interesting to note that the paper you linked on the Norway event cites none-other than Kevin Martin as a reference. A known internet shyster....just sayin :)

    Did you donate to Colin Andrews to keep his research going?
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    What's the reason for suggesting EISCAT had anything to do with this? What's the mechanism by which EISCAT would achieve this? Is it proposed it's a projected image, or a real phenomenon? Doesn't EISCAT produce very small fluctuations in ionspheric temperature via microwaves, the same as HAARP? How would that translate into the awesome sight on display?
    The Australian spirals? There was one in 2010, I think it was rocket-related.
    That radar image really just looks like a scanning artifact.
    Great information on the speed of the spinning spiral though. Maths is cool.

    Good synopsis of Australian 2010 spiral sighting.
    (all my attempts to upload an image are not working, here's a link for one if Mick would be so kind as to embed.)
  5. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I think it is pretty clear that HAARP/EISCAT etc can produce auroral displays. To put it technically :) much like high energy electrons passing through a resistor become a light bulb.

    BTW The power output and heat are massive. I am trying to find a PDF I had which detailed the outputs but can't seem to find it at the mo but here is a link which gives some graphics... just click on the links


    http://www.physics.uwo.ca/~lkagan/List of Selected Publications_files/Kagan-et-al-JASTP-2009.pdf



  6. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

  7. solrey

    solrey Senior Member


    Those "naked eye" observations were relatively faint speckles within the natural aurora that were barely visible without the aid of a telescope or camera with filters.

    That was discussion of the radar signature of naturally occurring Field Aligned Irregularities (FAI's). UHF doppler radar data was collected in order to develop simulations to compare against other radar data from both natural and artificial FAI's. The artificial FAI's were not visible to the naked eye.

    That little bit of cherry picking doesn't help your case at all, in fact if anything those papers when taken in their entirety helps to debunk what you're saying because the most they've ever achieved with E region heating are a few barely visible speckles. Furthermore, among several attempts they've only been able to accomplish that once at one facility, HAARP, and AFAIK the experiment has not been successfully replicated there or anywhere else.

    Like PeteTar said, those Australian radar images are just artifacts.
  8. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Ok, so how do you explain the blue beam which can be seen from ground level to the spiral. It is not part of the spiral but links the ground to the centre of the spiral.

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  9. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    The first stage of the rocket? Different gas? Then the next stage sent it into the catherine wheel spin. Just a guess.
    I wonder at what point in the atmosphere these gases are? The way it looks to be coming from below could easily be an illusion and it's really coming in from over the horizon.
    It's interesting how the white gas of the second stage seems to trail back to envelop the starting point. I wonder if that's wind dispersal? Or is this above the atmosphere?
    I can see how it looks 'projected'.
    You mentioned making images in the aurora layers. Then how can this image be an example of that if the visible part seems to start lower down?

    The interaction of sun and ionosphere produces fluctuations of heat routinely that far outstrip anything any man-made device can yet achieve. I'm sure the induced heating is the tiniest fraction of what is happening all the time. The point is it's controllable and they can read the results.

    And they did manage to induce a barely visible glow at one time, but that's not holographic imagery, or detailed auroral display. While auroral physics might be an interesting medium to paint in, I'm afraid it would lead to the lowest common dominator of advertising in the sky. Please god no!
  10. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Try starting with a hypothesis that makes the least assumptions.

    • Like Like x 2
  11. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    I think it is pretty clear that it does not.

    from the HAARP FAQ:
    the abstract of one of those papers is here with a link to the full 25mb paper itself.

    From that paper comes this description of what they used to see these optical effects:

  12. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Well someone is wrong then... Who?

  13. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    The authors of both papers are the same people, so probably ... them.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    LOL... bless em
  15. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

  16. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Neither is wrong. The HAARP FAQ says:

    In the experiment where they produced naked eye emissions they still used a telescope. They measured the intensity of specific wavelengths and generated a few tiny specks calculated to be visible with the naked eye.

    So in the above experiment they did generate weak optical emissions detected with sensitive cameras, they were just calculated to be visible to the naked eye but apparently were not physically observed with the naked eye. And they were only able to generate them due to the active aurora, whereas they have never generated optical emissions above the threshold for naked eye visibility in the absence of an active auroral display. Most HAARP experiments are conducted when the aurora is quiet because the effects are so weak they can't be detected otherwise.
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  18. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I think the graphic an extremely flawed theory that has hardly any substance... basically a spiral fantasy really.

    It requires two 'leaks' of precise balance in direction and pressure to form a perfect spiral of massive proportions and a different coloured Bluebeam tracking back to earth. Sorry but least assumptions not!


    No spirals reported

    Third stage does not kick in to a very high altitude and yet the 'Bluebeam' tracks right back virtually to ground level.

    The formation time of the spiral far exceeded 28 seconds.

    Normally, Russian missile test telemetries are from the White Sea to the Kura Test Range in Kamchatka Krai on the Pacific Coast... in the opposite direction to Norway.

    Why would Russia risk firing missiles over another Country without permission?
  19. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    The blue corkscrew tracks back to the horizon. Keep in mind the missile was fired on a northerly trajectory towards the Barents Sea from a submarine located in the White Sea over 400 miles from Tromso.

    Now why would Russia admit it was a failed launch of a controversial missile program plagued with failed test launches if it was something else?


    There have been several failed launches, including a previous malfunction of the third stage.


    Because they follow a "great circle" route that takes them over the arctic circle and that trajectory would be consistent with what was witnessed in Tromso as the missile flew a few hundred miles to the east.
  20. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Yes Horizon, far better definition. Good research, especially the last link.

    Do you have any idea why the 'effect' was most reported and apparently best viewed from Tromso? Some say that just happened to be the best view of the spiral effect but it is one hell of a coincidence.

    Agreed... that is extremely puzzling if you are looking at alternatives, as us CTers are apt to do :) but I do regard the questions I have posed as perfectly valid and reasonable. It's not as if I am trying to make something out of nothing.

    You are most probably right and it was a launch malfunction but I don't like loose ends so thanks for helping to clear it up.

    Someone here seems to think similarly to me

    This is rebutted in the thread but I think there are still loose ends. Sorry but it is strange IMO.


    Apparently on 24.12.2006, when after 3-4 minutes the third stage failed causing a self destruct. I can't find any visual on that flight.

  21. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    I don't have time to draw it up myself but take a look at this map and follow a great circle route from the White Sea to Kamchatka and consider the perspective of a high altitude flight path viewed from Tromso. Also notice the soft glow of the sun on the horizon, in December at almost 70 deg. North latitude. The sun backlit the missile at a high altitude and combined with the position of the sun made Tromso an ideal vantage point.

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  22. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    How do you know this? is there a video of it forming?
    Could the gases have kept following the momentum track they'd been given initially?
  23. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    These are the type of questions which support the CT really. Why the Bluebeam? Why such a perfect spiral, Why so long, Why no (or late) destruct command? etc


  24. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    That's very interesting Solrey, so you are saying the missile path was supposed to be from the White Sea, over the Barent Sea toward Svaldbard and then following through an arc to Kamchatka Krai. Makes much more sense than what I thought. I thought they were happy to send it overland on a high trajectory.

    Do you have a particular interest in this type of thing or is it just good researching?
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  25. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    The perfect spiral is easy - that is what physics/nature gives you.

    Why no destruct? Possibly because it all happened too quickly, or maybe the self destruct was itself damaged.

    There are plausible explanations that are a long way more likely than it was really HAARP/EISCAT!
  26. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    I make my own solid rocket propellant. It requires a fuel and an oxidizer. The same applies for liquid rocket fuels which power these ICMBs. The two chemicals are stored in separate tanks and mixed in the rocket's combustion chamber. The colour difference in the spirals could be explained by the two tanks venting two different chemicals.

    I believe the rest has been covered by others very well.
  27. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    That's very interesting and unusual that you make your own rocket fuel. Connotes you have hands on experience with rocket launches. Rocket scientist?

    But there was only one failure on the 3rd stage, (a nozzle malfunction), so I do not get the two different effects. I am just trying to rationalise it in my own mind. I have taken on board some interesting info from this thread but there are still a few niggles with it, although I am quite happy to admit it may likely be due to my ignorance on a difficult subject... which I am trying to rectify :)
  28. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Typical randomness of failed launches... Mike C please note: no perfect physics or nature structure.

    See those ufo's attacking the camera from around 2.40 on :)

  29. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    No... not a scientist, just a model rocketry hobbyist. The store bought kits are fun, but I really like the thrill of launching a completely homemade rocket.

    This is a complete guess, but here's my take on it.

    You've got the third stage of a rocket that has failed. If it's sub orbital, make it self destruct and all the little pieces burn up or rain down on the arctic. If the third stage is in orbit (or it's about to reach orbit), then vent the fuel tanks, because if you don't and it happens to explode while it's in orbit, then you'll have a million little hazardous pieces of space junk whipping around the planet instead of one easily tracked large piece of space junk. The spirals are the tanks releasing unburned fuel.

    It makes more sense to me that the spirals are caused by the failure of a known troublesome rocket, than some mysterious blue beam HAARP effect thing.
  30. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    I didn't see the Norway spiral but I was an eye-witness to the Aussie one. I was doing the red-eye from Perth to Sydney and as we were being vectored for the approach the spiral appeared. The First Officer snapped it with his Iphone, which doesn't work well in low light conditions. The consequent photo doesn't really do it justice as there was at least one more spiral ring than visible here.
    It was about 20 minutes before local sunrise, so the gases were beautifully illuminated at altitude. I didn't know what it was at the time. My subsequent thought was that some enterprising company should build a satellite that simply vents gas on command and sell the naming rights to another enterprising company. "The Pepsi Space Spiral" would be a sure-fire hit!

    • Like Like x 3
  31. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Wow, that's really cool. When was that and can you estimate how long it lasted?

    BTW like the ufo's on the right lol.
  32. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    It was June 2010. We saw it for 3-4 minutes. Hard to say exactly as we were at a busy part of the flight. It was still going when we lost sight of it. Ahh yes the attending UFO's... ;)

    One thing I forgot to mention was that the rotation of the stage was obviously quite slow as it did not appear to rotate.
  33. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    They look like physics and natural consequence of it to me - generating shapes that were not spirals because the situations were different

    There is no such thing as "perfect physics" - there is just physics. Our understanding of it may be imperfect - but "physics" doesn't care whether we understand it or not.
  34. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I can understand it making more sense to you than it being a HAARP type thing but we have to be honest with ourselves here, to make the missile story fit we have to take a leap of faith and discount some perfectly valid questions.

    I cannot help thinking critically on it and looking at it as a logical layman, I think it can't be described as 'being in orbit' as that does not fit it's purpose.

    I take your point about millions of shards, so was the missile 'destructed'. If not what happened to it... was it recovered from the sea? Was it destroyed as it came back down?

    Interestingly, Solreys link http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20110629/164913063.html does not list a destruct on that date but all previous failures list a destruct or self destruct.

    Similarly my link is also slightly ambiguous on whether a destruction occurred


    And I still cannot reconcile the Bluebeam to the horizon. Cobra's snap has no Bluebeam!
  35. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Here's the bottom line:

    A malfunctioning missile spiraling/tumbling out of control while releasing propellant gases is undoubtedly capable of producing the blue corkscrew "beam" and white spiral whereas a corkscrew or some other type of spiral like formation has never been reported in any ionospheric heater experiment and the weak brightness of optical emissions from the tiny speckles during the one and only experiment so far to produce them is not even close to the brightness of the Norway spiral, nor did the experiment produce blue or white colors, they were green.

    Something to keep in mind is that ionospheric heaters are not capable of ionizing anything, they just excite the already free electrons in the ionosphere knocked free by UV light from the sun.

    I studied aerospace technology and have a knack for troubleshooting complex systems.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Very true. For instance, you've not once explained how radio waves could possibly create spiral and corkscrew patterns in the sky. How exactly does that happen?

    Look... if you're not going to do even basic research into the subject, then please tell me and I'll leave this thread.

    ICBMs typically enter a low earth orbit. So if the third stage failed while in such a low or unstable orbit, then it would make sense to empty the fuel tanks to prevent an accidental explosion that would create even more space junk.


    It's perspective. Planes appear over the horizon and they are already flying at cruise altitudes. Just because the blue corkscrew pattern LOOKS like started from the ground does not mean it did. It could have popped over the horizon at an altitude of several hundred kilometres.
  37. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    :) Well that seems to be it then... Debunked... unless someone else knows better lol.

    Thanks to all contributors on this, found it very interesting.