Mysterious Spiral Over Norway

yeah definitely not a failed rocket test like they said. We dont live in the mid 1900's anymore, you cant blame everything on failed government experiments. We know better now.
 
7.jpg
 
Brownstone said:
Kinda hoping its aliens
Click to expand...

Lmao me too. Wouldn't be surprised, but we would never find out for sure. We would end up dead first probably.

You guys remember the Batman Signal? A spot light with something over it to make it look a bat. Maybe someone had a spotlight stashed in their garage. Mixed with northern lights? :D

I'm not a rocket scientist, but a failed rocket wouldn't make spirals in the sky.
 
Are any of you folks familiar with Tom Bearden?

The Tom Bearden Website A formulation of superelectromagnetics theory and the development of overunity devices. Negative resistance dipoles.

www.cheniere.org/
Click to expand...

Tesla had some interesting theories about Electro magnetic Scalar weapons. Quite possible. HAARP builds on this science, but it was really the Soviets that explored it at depth.

Anyways, Bearden has some very interesting reading....
 
XBarbarian said:
Are any of you folks familiar with Tom Bearden?



Tesla had some interesting theories about Electro magnetic Scalar weapons. Quite possible. HAARP builds on this science, but it was really the Soviets that explored it at depth.

Anyways, Bearden has some very interesting reading....
Click to expand...

That free energy machine he is promoting sure looks like the real deal....:rolleyes:

100 time more power than was input? Sure....
 
Ya know, hearing the Russians say it was a failed missle makes me think of Stargate. All the times aliens did something that needed to be explained, the major governments would all have a cover story.
 
Does the description of the missile they were testing worry anyone?

"The Bulava missile is designed to carry six individually targeted nuclear warheads over a range of 6,200 miles."
 
Russia finally admitted to the accident, which is an embarrassing mishap for a rocket that had already failed six of 13 previous tests, according to the BBC.
Click to expand...

I lol'd.
 
Well they said that it is a failed ICBM test, so why are they even testing ICBM's?

Also this looks like the warp effects you see in movies when a ship is entering or leaving warp, so can they warp nukes to their targets?

This looks very strange and I do not think we should just take any explanation and say "so, oh well, thats what it is, move on...". Someone knows the truth.

If governments have other ways of getting an object into low earth orbit very fast they need to come clean.
 
CMD said:
Well they said that it is a failed ICBM test, so why are they even testing ICBM's?
Click to expand...

The same reason we do. To make sure it works. It would suck if we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and found out our guns didn't work as the blueprint said it should have.
 
It's obviously not a missile. If you saw the pictures and the videos you must realize it. Even if the rocket did fly in a spiral, it wouldn't explain why the spiral is spinning in the videos.
 
FranklyShankly said:
http://gizmodo.com/5422792/this-is-how-the-mysterious-giant-spiral-happened

The video shows very clearly how a rocket can make spirals in the sky.

I am amazed how many people are desperate to believe there is something else going on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's amazing how people can say things like that. Really though, "alternative science" people are ready to believe just about anything. To them, an explanation that doesn't fit with regular science holds more weight than one that does. It never seems to matter that all the math has already been worked out, the simulations have been run, the scale tests completed and the data compiled. All of that is just hogwash, some kind of conspiracy. No no, *they* know the real answer.
 
Spewn said:
Yeah, it's amazing how people can say things like that. Really though, "alternative science" people are ready to believe just about anything. To them, an explanation that doesn't fit with regular science holds more weight than one that does. It never seems to matter that all the math has already been worked out, the simulations have been run, the scale tests completed and the data compiled. All of that is just hogwash, some kind of conspiracy. No no, *they* know the real answer.
Click to expand...

That's obviously false because *I* am the one who knows the real answer.

;)
 
Is it just me, or is it odd that this happened less than 48 hours before Obama was in Norway to receive the peace prize? Mind Control indeed.
 
gtg465x said:
Does the description of the missile they were testing worry anyone?

"The Bulava missile is designed to carry six individually targeted nuclear warheads over a range of 6,200 miles."
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone actually caught on to this. MIRV-equipped missiles were banned under the START II treaty. They are first-strike weapons. Why does Russia feel it needs new first-strike submarine-based ICBM's? Are they planning on starting a nuclear war with someone? With a former KGB calling the shots, shouldn't this bother just about everyone?

The launch test being planned when Obama was due to accept his Nobel is no coincidence. Saber-rattling of this kind goes on all the time between regimes. The fact that the test failed was a bit of an embarrassment to the Russians, but the lack of media attention to the test itself is rather unsettling. They publish political BS and nothing more, and really important things like this get ignored. This test should be a wake-up call to the US and Europe. Russia has been going back to the old Soviet-era ways and few seem to be taking notice.
 
Phoenix333 said:
I'm glad someone actually caught on to this. MIRV-equipped missiles were banned under the START II treaty. They are first-strike weapons. Why does Russia feel it needs new first-strike submarine-based ICBM's? Are they planning on starting a nuclear war with someone? With a former KGB calling the shots, shouldn't this bother just about everyone?

The launch test being planned when Obama was due to accept his Nobel is no coincidence. Saber-rattling of this kind goes on all the time between regimes. The fact that the test failed was a bit of an embarrassment to the Russians, but the lack of media attention to the test itself is rather unsettling. They publish political BS and nothing more, and really important things like this get ignored. This test should be a wake-up call to the US and Europe. Russia has been going back to the old Soviet-era ways and few seem to be taking notice.
Click to expand...

Media is too busy tracking down Tiger Wood's mistresses. And chasing celebrities around the world to get a glimpse of them in an embarrassing moment, etc.
 
Phoenix333 said:
The fact that the test failed was a bit of an embarrassment to the Russians, but the lack of media attention to the test itself is rather unsettling.
Click to expand...

Why is a missile test worth any significant amount of attention? They tested a Bulava in their territory, just as they have been for several years. It's not like this is some secret missile project, they publicly adopted the missile months ago.
 
Perhaps you were not yet alive during the Cold War, but such missiles almost ended human civilization on a few occasions when two very heavily armed countries came to the brink of using them. I'd think that testing missiles capable of carrying multiple independently targeted NUCLEAR WARHEADS would be of a lot more concern than how many women Tiger Woods has slept with, especially when done in the vicinity of a former(?) adversary's chief military leader. But what do I know? Why don't you tell me what is worthy of significant attention since I'm clearly lacking in understanding here. Certainly testing new weapons capable of killing millions of people in a sneak attack are just completely inconsequential in this day and age. Please, go on. Enlighten me. I'm very interested in hearing what concerns you.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Perhaps you were not yet alive during the Cold War, but such missiles almost ended human civilization on a few occasions when two very heavily armed countries came to the brink of using them. I'd think that testing missiles capable of carrying multiple independently targeted NUCLEAR WARHEADS would be of a lot more concern than how many women Tiger Woods has slept with, especially when done in the vicinity of a former(?) adversary's chief military leader. But what do I know? Why don't you tell me what is worthy of significant attention since I'm clearly lacking in understanding here. Certainly testing new weapons capable of killing millions of people in a sneak attack are just completely inconsequential in this day and age. Please, go on. Enlighten me. I'm very interested in hearing what concerns you.
Click to expand...

one more missile isn't going to make an iota of a difference. Accept the fact that we'll be fucked either way if there were ever to be a nuclear war.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Perhaps you were not yet alive during the Cold War, but such missiles almost ended human civilization on a few occasions when two very heavily armed countries came to the brink of using them. I'd think that testing missiles capable of carrying multiple independently targeted NUCLEAR WARHEADS would be of a lot more concern than how many women Tiger Woods has slept with, especially when done in the vicinity of a former(?) adversary's chief military leader. But what do I know? Why don't you tell me what is worthy of significant attention since I'm clearly lacking in understanding here. Certainly testing new weapons capable of killing millions of people in a sneak attack are just completely inconsequential in this day and age. Please, go on. Enlighten me. I'm very interested in hearing what concerns you.
Click to expand...

Nice rant.

Please explain how going from being able to sterilize the planet 10 times over to 10.03 times over is going to make some difference.
 
Phoenix333 said:
I'm glad someone actually caught on to this. MIRV-equipped missiles were banned under the START II treaty. They are first-strike weapons. Why does Russia feel it needs new first-strike submarine-based ICBM's? Are they planning on starting a nuclear war with someone? With a former KGB calling the shots, shouldn't this bother just about everyone?

The launch test being planned when Obama was due to accept his Nobel is no coincidence. Saber-rattling of this kind goes on all the time between regimes. The fact that the test failed was a bit of an embarrassment to the Russians, but the lack of media attention to the test itself is rather unsettling. They publish political BS and nothing more, and really important things like this get ignored. This test should be a wake-up call to the US and Europe. Russia has been going back to the old Soviet-era ways and few seem to be taking notice.
Click to expand...
You sir are an idiot. Please go back in time 20 years thank you. Countries develop new weapons all the time in fact Russia has a land version of this missile called the Topol-M but that is ok. Goign by your logic if England creates a new weapon does that mean it will bring the British Empire back?
 
Azhar: It's not just "one more missile", it's the strategic capabilities of the missile that are the question. Assume for a moment that the US abided by the START II treaty and no longer has MIRV capability, while the Russians are building MIRV-capable missiles and at the same time have been adamant about the US not developing anti-ballistic defenses. That implies they want to keep first-strike capability with no effective defense. Why want that if the Cold War is over? Of course it's very possible the US is not abiding by the treaty and has kept MIRV capability. Still, the question is not answered: Who is Russia concerned about that they feel they might have to annihilate a population at some point?

Nemesis: Thank you. A good rant is a healthy thing once in a while. I recommend them. :)

You're assuming that a nuclear engagement will mean the entire planet becomes unlivable. That will not be the case in a limited nuclear engagement. First-strike weapons are intended for destroying a single enemy in a concentrated simultaneous attack so there can be no effective retaliatory response. The planet and the human race will continue to live in this case. The danger of these weapons is that they unbalance the power. The whole reason nuclear reduction treaties were put in place was to try to avoid having so many nuclear weapons to prevent the destruction of the modern world. They were also put into place because nuclear weapons are high maintenance and expensive to keep in working order. There was also the concern of proliferation and a rogue threat triggering a nuclear attack that could result in a full exchange. It's a logical course of action, but treaties are only good if both parties follow them.

You also did not answer my question. Now that I have explained in good faith why I believe there is a difference, I still would like to know what does severely concern you since you do not consider this a concern.
 
Banko: If you can't make a point without resorting to petty insults and name calling, then please kindly STFU and crawl back under your rock. Have a nice day. :)
 
Phoenix333 said:
Azhar: It's not just "one more missile", it's the strategic capabilities of the missile that are the question. Assume for a moment that the US abided by the START II treaty and no longer has MIRV capability, while the Russians are building MIRV-capable missiles and at the same time have been adamant about the US not developing anti-ballistic defenses. That implies they want to keep first-strike capability with no effective defense. Why want that if the Cold War is over? Of course it's very possible the US is not abiding by the treaty and has kept MIRV capability. Still, the question is not answered: Who is Russia concerned about that they feel they might have to annihilate a population at some point?
Click to expand...

Saying they should only be developing such weapons if they're concerned about something is like saying one should only buy a gun if one lives in a bad neighborhood.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Banko: If you can't make a point without resorting to petty insults and name calling, then please kindly STFU and crawl back under your rock. Have a nice day. :)
Click to expand...
Honestly treaties mean nothing in this day and age. Bill Clinton also said that NATO will not come close to Russia's border (which is clearly not the case). You also don't realize that the START II treaty is no longer in effect either. A new treaty which is called SORT was signed by Bush and Putin in 2002 that only limits the amount of warheads in each countries respective stockpile and does not limit MIRV or any other type of missile.
 
AVT: It's not the difference between owning and not owning a gun, it's the difference between owning a shotgun and owning a howitzer. One is useful for self-defense, one is useful for obliterating someone else's home. I just want to know if the Russians still consider the US and Europe as the same kind of threat as during the Cold War. If that is their perception, then I think it should be of concern to people.

Banko: I was aware of the SORT treaty, however I had thought the START II treaty was still in effect. I reread the treaty details and I see where the Russians withdrew and that it was abandoned, so I am corrected. You have my thanks there.
 
Phoenix333 said:
AVT: It's not the difference between owning and not owning a gun, it's the difference between owning a shotgun and owning a howitzer. One is useful for self-defense, one is useful for obliterating someone else's home. I just want to know if the Russians still consider the US and Europe as the same kind of threat as during the Cold War. If that is their perception, then I think it should be of concern to people.

Banko: I was aware of the SORT treaty, however I had thought the START II treaty was still in effect. I reread the treaty details and I see where the Russians withdrew and that it was abandoned, so I am corrected. You have my thanks there.
Click to expand...

Since my parents came to the US after escaping from the Soviet Union and I've heard my share of stores, I could probably answer your question. However, by Russians, do you mean the Russian government, or the Russian people? Since I'm not sure which you're referring to, I'll answer for both.

The people: Believe it or not, the Russian people never did consider the US a threat of any kind. The type of censorship in effect there prevented the average uninformed citizen from even having a clue that there even was a cold war to begin with. Well, that, or I'm misunderstanding my parents' experience on a massive scale.

The government: No. They're probably developing this in order to have the "If you attack us on any serious scale, we will destroy you" card available to them. Does this mean they're going to attack anyone? No. You can't blame them for wanting a howitzer when everyone else pretty much has one too.
 
AVT said:
Since my parents came to the US after escaping from the Soviet Union and I've heard my share of stores, I could probably answer your question. However, by Russians, do you mean the Russian government, or the Russian people? Since I'm not sure which you're referring to, I'll answer for both.

The people: Believe it or not, the Russian people never did consider the US a threat of any kind. The type of censorship in effect there prevented the average uninformed citizen from even having a clue that there even was a cold war to begin with. Well, that, or I'm misunderstanding my parents' experience on a massive scale.

The government: No. They're probably developing this in order to have the "If you attack us on any serious scale, we will destroy you" card available to them. Does this mean they're going to attack anyone? No. You can't blame them for wanting a howitzer when everyone else pretty much has one too.
Click to expand...

Especially since Russia is surrounded by rogue nations with nuclear ambitions. North Korea, Iran, and to a lesser intent Pakistan (a real danger if Taliban succeed in their fight against Pakistan). China and Russia aren't exactly friends either I believe. And there's also Georgia who isn't too thrilled to be neighbors with Russia.

Phoenix, you're being narrow-minded if all you're thinking about is the return of the Cold Wars. We, of the US, built a missile defense umbrella in Europe and Alaska and the Russian government were up in arms about it, saying we're going back to the Cold War days, remember? We put it up because rogue nations were developing nukes and long range rockets. It's not because of Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top