Saturday, December 12, 2009

Proof that the Norway Spiral was not a missile

It's not rocket science.

If it was a missile that exploded over Norway on Wednesday, then I am Pope Benedict XVI. Everyone on this planet knows what a failed missile looks like - failed missiles and rockets have occurred thousands and thousands of times throughout history. In my world, when something fails catastrophically, it fails chaotically. There was nothing catastrophic or chaotic about the Norway spiral. Nothing about the Norway spiral looked anything like a "failure".

Clear reasons why this was NOT a missile:

1.) The missile theory is that a submarine, the Dmitri Donskoy, launched the Bulava missile from the White Sea early that morning. The attached picture 1 was taken in Tromso, Norway. So the people that claim this is a missile want me to believe that if I were to follow the blue trail to its source (picture 1) it would be 700 miles away - in the White Sea? The atmosphere is about 30 miles thick, therefore, the missile traveled at an angle that put it 700 miles away, before it reached 30 miles up? Do you realize how shallow of an angle that is? If I were to look up details about missiles, I guarantee intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) are not launched at those types of angles.

2.) Further, if the missile WAS launched from the White Sea, how is it that no one in Finland, Sweden or Russia saw this event?

3.) Why in the world would Russia launch an ICBM near the land mass of Norway merely hours before the President of the United States of America arrived in Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize for his effort in the disarmament of nuclear weapons? Wouldn't this have the potential for some negative effects and reactions? Further, why was Norway NOT INFORMED that Russia was going to do so?

4.) If this was a missile, then why are there TWO planes of trajectories shown in the attached pictures? One trajectory is the blue trail, the second "trajectory" is the white spiral light. If the white spiral IS a trajectory, then it is nearly PERFECTLY lined up with the angle in which the attached pictures were taken. You can tell this by measuring the widths of each of the white spirals. They are nearly identical. So this missile defied physics and made a significant change in direction mid-flight?

5.) You'll quickly notice that EVERY picture taken of this event appears to be taken from an angle in which the white spiral "trajectory" is perfectly in line with the camera. These pictures were taken from all over the length of northern Norway. Strange. It would appear the reason for this is that the white spiral "trajectory" is SO FAR AWAY from us, that from all viewpoints the angle is the same. Well, if this is so far away from us - couldn't we make a calculation of the speed in which the "exhaust / fuel" is speeding away from the center of the spiral, and wouldn't that speed be UNIMAGINABLY fast. Further the SIZE of the thing rotating in the middle of the spiral must be INCREDIBLY large.

6.) The size of the Bulava Missile is 12 meters long.

7.) The spiral lasted for over 10 minutes.

8.) What is the white stuff forming the large spiral that takes up most of the sky?

A.) Exhaust? Well have you ever seen exhaust move away from its source at the speed shown in the youtube video? Even if there was no atmospheric drag on the exhaust the speed it is going is unbelievable. Maybe water could travel at such a speed - water has more mass. Exhaust does not have the mass for it to move like that for minutes after it was expended. Think of the trail behind a jet.

B.) Fuel? Well why is fuel shooting up and away from the forces of gravity - allowing a perfect circle to be formed. Gravity is clearly not playing a role in the Norway Spiral but it should be because the formation was not seen directly overhead. If this was fuel, we'd see the effects of gravity.

C.) Whatever that stuff is, it filled an ENORMOUS fraction of the sky. All this originated from a 12 meter missile?

This reeks of a cover-up story. The media came up with the excuses and cover story before the Russian military even did. The Russian military finally got onboard, taking the media's lead saying "yeah, actually we DID fire a missile around that area, kinda - yeah!" (chuckle, chuckle, shuffle of boots). What's important to note is that the Russians HAVE NOT declared a link between the spiral and any fired missile (in case this story backfires). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia never even launched a missile in the first place - but there's no way to prove that.

This cover-up story fell together so fast it nearly fell apart because people got in a hot panic to find an explanation for something they had no explanation for. Now the people at the top cannot fine tune the cover story to pass it off as something more believable because they were too quick to fuel the theory that the spiral was a failed rocket. Given enough time, and had no one panicked, then a better story could have been formulated.

Too late. Watch as more pictures and videos surface, and the missile theory completely falls apart. Unfortunately, by then most people will have written it off because all media outlets are reporting "mystery spiral solved". It's astonishing to me how people do not question these sorts of things.

THIS is the explanation that everyone is buying??? Really?

Anyways, I have no idea what that spiral was. No clue. But I'm 100 percent certain it was not a missile or a rocket.

What do you think?


  1. I agree. Absolutely believe that this phenomena was not a missile or rocket.

    What will be interesting to see is how the international community responds-- if at all to this matter. Will the Norwegian government come through and say something? If not, why were the Russians that ones that came forth and what were they doing launching missiles/rockets in Norwegian air space?

    It's a very interesting debate, for sure. I liked your post, great work.

  2. Gotta agree with you, that phenomenon was too perfect for the explanation given. What about the winds aloft? The sheer size of this spiral, if it was indeed a missile, couldn't maintain that shape without being shredded by the winds aloft, as they vary by altitude. Just my thoughts.

  3. Who said anything about an explosion? It was a missle that malfunctioned in the third stage. Not exploded.

    Here's an article of interest on this topic:

  4. Also you're assuming this display happened just above 30 miles altitude. How did you come by this?

  5. 1) New russian "Bulava" SLBM unlike "old-school" intercontinental missiles has more complicated trajectory than just "dumb" ballistic missiles. It's capable to defensive and avoiding maneuvers. Missile's first and second stages are solid fuel powered. However, Bulava's third stage uses liquid fuel for allowing controllability(manoeuvrability) and faster bombs separation from "warhead bus". Warheads are also highly manoeuvrable itsels to avoid prospective interceptors.
    Actually, these "effects" in Norway's sky were affected and visually enhanced to great distance because missile failed at very high altitude, alsmost in space.

    2) It's maybe because observers in Finnland, Sweden and Russia had not good weather and clear sky to observe like people had in Norway?

    3) Actually Russia given alert for possible missile launch. Who said that the missile technically failed over Norway's airspace??????

    4) Blue trail effect was trail from missile's boost phase. White spiral light - trail of "warhead bus" vehicle reentried from space after third stage failure.
    Do not forget, it was new missiles with new technology.

    5) Another similar ICBM test(land-based military missile, successfull) in Russia was identified as pseudo-UFO in 2006. Watch:

    6) So what???

    7) It is not strange!

    Please answer here if you has objections!

  6. Great comments!

    Anon 1 & Anon 2: Very interesting comments from you both. I agree that it will be interesting to see what happens next. Shouldn't radar data be provided if that was indeed a missile? Also, the winds aloft point is brilliant. How could exhaust maintain that shape???

    ND: The 30 miles came from the fact that the 3rd stage of a Bulava missile is the stage that propels it into space. The 3rd stage is the last small piece of the missile - really the head of the 12 meter long entire body. That head produced THAT much material in the sky? I don't see how that makes sense. Further, I've read reports that the missile fuel was in fact solid. This makes sense if you want to pack enough fuel in a 12 m rocket to get the object in space. How does a solid fuel explain the leak in the model simulation. Even if the leak was a gas or liquid, how does that material CONTINUE to travel away from the rocket at a constant rate for over 10 minutes?

  7. Anon 3:

    1. I feel I've addressed this in the comment, above.
    2. I don't buy it. If people in Denmark, Sweden, and Russia didn't see it due to weather phenomena - show me weather reports throughout the regions indicating that the weather was completely different and uniform. A much more logical explanation is that they didn't see it because, whatever this event was, it didn't happen close to them - they were too far away to see it.
    3. If Russia launched an ICBM from the White Sea, it would not have to explode over Norway's landmass for Norway to become alarmed. There would be repercussions for this. Why wouldn't Russia aim this thing North, or Northeast - instead of for the people of Scandinavia?
    4. How does that third stage produce that much fuel/exhaust?? I realize you think this is a magic missile - but you need to do a lot more convincing for me to believe this was a missile.
    5. Regarding this video - I would like to see documentation of WHEN this video was shot, WHERE it was shot, and the place/time of the alleged Russian missile launch. Otherwise, this argument holds no water

    Finally, I'd just like to say that I've read a lot of people talking about HAARP and Project Blue Beam. I'll need to read a bit more about this. I'm open to the possibility that this was a top-secret human related event, but my gut tells me its not. If this were a HAARP project, wouldn't they have an excellent explanation for the public about this on que? If they had the time and money to develop something like that, wouldn't they have a better explanation then a "missile"? Everything about this event tells me it was a surprise. The timing, the location, and the response.

    Thanks again for your comments, lets keep the debate going!

  8. I read on another blog that a professor of the University of Stokholm who is the Director of Space Research does not believe it was a Russian missile or any other missile. He claims there are hundreds of NASA personnel arriving in Oslo and that they are there to retrieve "something" that came out of this event and landed in the sea. His name is Bjorn Andreassen. He further contends if it were a failed missile that landed in the sea, it wouldn't be a hundred NASA people interested in retrieving the item.
    I'm not sure of the validity of the getxnews website, I am only very interested in this subject and do not believe the missile theory. Keeping an open mind.

  9. Wow - incredible. Thanks for sharing that link. Please post further comments as you learn more.

    I've thought a lot about tipping points in the past. Could this be a tipping point? How long will the public believe this was a missile? Will Russia stick with the missile story - even though it may cause significant friction in international politics? Will Russia decide not to take the rap for this - and bust it wide open?

    What an interesting time to be alive on this planet.

  10. Honestly the 2nd Anonymous person got my interest when he said an object came from it. If this wasn't a missile, and was something extraterrestrial maybe the spiral was in fact a wormhole? It could be hogwash but we have no idea, unless somebody decides to spill the beans, but I honestly doubt that will ever happen.

  11. Russia put out a stay-clear-rocket-launch warning before the spiral display occured. There was a missle launch and Russia admitted it was a Bulava.

    That professor says no major news outlet mentions a missle. But here's a NY Times article dated Dec 10th.

    Also, I could not find a Bjørn Andreassen of Stockholm University’s Space Research Centre after googling.

  12. What I think is interesting is this:

    The Norway Spiral DID look like some type of "worm hole" out of science fiction. I think it is logical to think that the Norway WAS a worm hole, especially if the website turns out to be correct. If this is all true (which we may never find out) what sends me on a spin, is WHY was our science fiction idea of a "worm hole" so accurate?

    Anyways - there are a lot of "IFs" in my statement above.

    Great point Marz.

  13. John,

    Regarding the 3rd stage. The wiki page on the icbm says 3 solid fuel stages but other pages mention liquid for 3rd stage. If it was solid, if you'll remember the Challenger accident, there was hot gas blowingout of the failed O-ring of the solid rocket booster. It was this hot gas that punctured the fuel tank. So you can get a hot gas leaking out of a solid rocket.

    In order to get the large thrust of a rocket you need to be pushing the exhuast at great speed. In space, away from the atmosphere, the exhaust will leave the rocket at a constant and large velocity.

  14. John,

    "The Norway Spiral DID look like some type of "worm hole" out of science fiction. I think it is logical to think that the Norway WAS a worm hole,..."

    If this is the type of "logic" you use, then there isn't much to discuss anymore.

  15. ND: This is the missile launch warning from the Frisnit Navtex decoder that everyone is passing around the internet:

    ZCZC FA79
    031230 UTC DEC 09
    1.ROCKET LAUNCHING 2300 07 DEC TO 0600 08 DEC
    09 DC 0200 TO 0900 10 DEC 0100 TO 0900
    65-12.6N 036-37.0E 65-37.2N 036-26.0E
    66-12.3N 037-19.0E 66-04.0N 037-47.0E
    66-03.0N 038-38.0E 66-06.5N 038-55.0E
    65-11.0N 037-28.0E 65-12.1N 036-49.5E
    THEN COASTAL LINE 65-12.2N 036-47.6E

    These lat-longs are in the White Sea. There are no warnings whatsoever for the spectacular light show near Norway.

    Good point about Bjørn Andreassen of Stockholm University’s Space Research Centre. I couldn't find anything either. I think we'll have to assume the website is spreading false information.

    None of this changes my opinion that the spiral was not due to any type of missile. Great information though, please continue to share.

  16. ND: How would the 3rd stage produce that much fuel/exhaust? And you still have not answered why that fuel/exhaust speeds away from the center of the spiral in a uniform way with no indication of the effects of gravity.

    Regarding the "worm hole" thing - I keep an open mind on this subject. A wormhole is at the very most, hypothetical. Again, I have NO idea what the Norway spiral was - but unlike many who think this is a missile, I do not pretend that I do know. A "worm hole" is a speculation - I'm not about to defend it, or argue for it. Because I have no idea.

  17. Pretty interesting coincidence between what we saw in Norway and the artistic rendering of the Einstein-Rosen Bridge effect. Just interesting/entertaining.

  18. The only plausible thing for the 3rd stage is if it the missile spun at a constant speed spewing the gas at a very high altitude like ND stated was possibly in space. As it spins it the leak if it was in one particular spot would continue leaking making the gas leak in a uniform way. If it was a gas, the gas would have dispersed faster and wouldn't have lasted that long. Now if it was a liquid and it was high enough so that the weightlessness left it there for long enough, there has to be something illuminating the liquid/solid it has to be dense enough to be seen from that far of a distance. One plausible thing would be the engine thing at the tip of the missile (I'm not keen on the missiles), but is that really enough to illuminate the entire spiral? The other thing would be the fact that the sun illuminated the white spiral, but unless somebody knows if the fuel was bio illuminescante (pardon my bad spelling if it's wrong), we won't know.

  19. And as far as the Einstein-Rosen Bridge, it is a slight possibility, from things I have read in the actual article I first saw on Yahoo a few nights ago some people have stated that the Super Collider had been activated the night before. And in the article provided by John it is said that for a Lorentzian wormhole to remain open long enough for a vessel to go through there would need to be a vast amount of negative energy to keep it open. Now this is just pure speculation but wouldn't creating a miniature big bang create enough of both positive and negative energy? And hypothetically if it is enough, then we could theoretically open a wormhole to either A. Parallel Universe or B. A distance point in space

  20. the idea of a leak perpendicular to the line of flight of a rotating icbm was one of the first explanations that were proposed. Here's a simulation that on this idea:

    One thing to notice is that the spirals appear to on a flat plane from the ground but is a spiral in a conical shape.

    Also, a liquid rocket has high pressure pumps for feeding the rocket engine at a high rate. If there is a leak about at right angles to the flight from the pump, there would be fuel leaking out at a high speed. Again this is speculation but well within the realm of possibility.

    Also rockets have various different components that all have to function for the rocket to work. Different components could lead to different types of failures and not necessarily any explosion.

  21. ND: I've watched that simulation many times and it doesn't explain the Norway spiral. It doesn't come close.

    The white spiral appears to be lined up perfectly with every picture we have seen of this event across northern Norway. Therefore, the white spiral must be very, very far away - Correct?

    Now, watch any youtube video of the event. Pay specific attention to the END of the event where the "black hole" is formed because the "fuel had run out". How would you explain the speed in which that "fuel" is moving AWAY from the center of the spiral? How? That edge of that "black hole" is moving faster than an commercial airplane moves across the sky... airplanes fly at about 600 mph. AND those airplanes are not even close to being 30 miles up in the sky.

    Think of the speed needed for your "scenario" to be possible. This is the major hole in your argument - the scenario you suggest makes no sense whatsoever.

  22. Further - why does gravity not have an effect on the perfect round formation of your alleged "fuel leak"?

  23. John,

    In that simulation the fuel has both the forward speed from the rocket and the right angle (or close to it) speed it has gained when it's forced away from the rocket. The entire spiral shape has the same speed going forward. Any gravitational affect on the spiral shaped gas should be fairly uniform. I bet you that shape is slightly mishapen but not easy to pick up on by the human eye.

    As for speed, you're comparing dissimilar objects. In the case of a normaly operating rockets here are some figures on the speed at which the burnt fuel from the engine travels:

    in the case of a solid rocket the exhaust velocity is
    2500 m/s. According to google "2500 m/s to miles per hour" is 5 592.3 miles per hour. But that's for a working rocket. In the case of the shuttle Challenger, the solid rocket thrust was leaking from the side, that's burning rocket exhaust and it would be moving pretty fast. Dunno how fast but reasonable to expect it be at high velocity. In the case of a liquid fuel, if there is a leak from the pump then I'm going to guess that the fuel would be pushed out at a high rate of speed. I'm guessing here but a reasonable guess I would say.

    One thing that's important is that to say things are moving too fast and that what we see appears to be too much fuel for the given rocket size totally depends on how far away and wide that spiral was. We don't have clear figures on this but above 100 km is a starting point given the lack of atmospheric turbulenc on the spirals.

  24. Did you not read the bullet points in my original post, or are you simply ignoring them?

    Let me get this straight. You are now saying the WHITE spiral is due to exhaust? Previously, you said fuel. WHICH IS IT? You cannot combine the physical characteristics of fuel and exhaust to apply them to your argument as it suits you.

    You completely ignore the fact that, while exhaust CAN move at great speeds when it exits the thrusters of the rocket, it CANNOT continue at that speed for many seconds longer - let alone over ten minutes. Exhaust does not have the mass do to so. I'll remind you, once again, of the exhaust from a jet that leaves a line in the sky.


    "Any gravitational affect on the spiral shaped gas should be fairly uniform."

    WHY? If this is indeed a "a spiral in a conical shape" the angle in which the cone is aligned with the ground is not perpendicular. Due to the location of the "spiraling rocket" on the horizon - it's clear that if it is expelling fuel/exhaust, some of it must be going UP and against the forces of gravity. However, the perfect formation of the circle indicates that gravity is playing absolutely no role in this.

    Finally - Your last paragraph is a laughable contradiction of itself and is the smoking gun in this "debate". To summarize my argument: the spiral is at least 100 km away, therefore, the size of the spiral and the speed of the "exhaust/fuel" moving away from the center of the spiral clearly show this is not from a 12 meter missile.

  25. John,

    The point of the of the exhaust speed was to show that a rocket is capable of pushing off material at great speed. In this Norway case, a malfunction could be spewing/pushing/pumping fuel at right angles to the trajectory of the rocket. We don't know exactly what the malfunction is but there are forces created by the rocket that could push material at great speed.

    I used wording such as "In the case of a normaly operating rockets ..." and "But that's for a working rocket. " to make it clear that I was talking about exhaust speed from a correctly funtioning rocket. As for exhaust being the source of the spiral, I don't know.

    "while exhaust CAN move at great speeds when it exits the thrusters of the rocket, it CANNOT continue at that speed for many seconds longer - let alone over ten minutes. Exhaust does not have the mass do to so."
    Yes it can, *in space*. Once you push something in space it will continue at that speed, plus any gravitational affects acting on it. It is irrelavant wether the mass is a gas or a solid object. In the atmosphere the exhaust will obviously impact with teh air and slow down. We're talking above the atmosphere which ICBMs are capabale of reaching.

    How fast do you think that spiral is expanding? What would it take to calculate it?

    Right now, the icbm idea is the explanation that fits. How do other hyphotheses fit this phenomenon.

  26. I really don't know how much gravity would distort the shape of the spiral. What sort of affect were you expecting?

  27. Again, I will point to the giant, gaping hole in your argument. The third stage of the Bulava rocket is 2 meters long. Do you understand how long 2 meters is?

    Now watch this clip:

    That 2 meter long 3rd stage is the thing rotating in the middle of that perfect spiral? That 2 meter long stage produced enough "fuel/exhaust" to fill up that large a fraction of the sky?

    How fast is the spiral expanding? Watch the clip starting at 0:22. See how FAST that "fuel/exhaust" moves at the edge of the "black circle"? Do you understand how fast that would have to be going if this is occurring *in space* ?

  28. I really enjoyed this debate and appreciate all the material presented because I keep an open mind. Sadly, however, this event will fade very quickly from the mainstream. Not a lot of media play on it from the start and not a single person I talked with even heard of it. Jeepers. Are people really that busy playing Wii, PS3, texting, and other things? I reside in New England and can't believe the lack of attention people have for the global news events.
    I will continue to follow this thread and will file this event in the back of my mind for possible future reference. Don't want to go through life blind.
    Joe/RI (past anonymous poster)

  29. Oh, and regarding your question: "How do other hyphotheses fit this phenomenon?"

    I'm not required to provide an alternative hypothesis. I'm simply proving YOUR hypothesis is wrong.

  30. John,

    Please show me how you determined how much fuel that be in the spirals if it was leaking from the rocket. That's most likely not liquid floating in space. You can't judge things by how they look alone. Looks can be deceiving.

    "Do you understand how fast that would have to be going if this is occurring *in space* "

    And how fast is it moving? Please give me some numbers. Again you're making a quick judgement by how things look. Fast things can move pretty fast especially in space. How fast do you think spirals are expanding and how is that practically impossible?

  31. Last Anonymous,

    I'm in the NE area as well I pay attention to global news :)

  32. John,

    Given the lack of credibile alternative explanations, the rocket one is still the best fit despite the fact that we don't know exact manner of the rocket malfunction. That's all we have right now, most likely the ICBM that the Russians said they launched the day of the spiral phenomenon. And they said the rocket malfunctioned. That's all there is to it. A most likely explanation.

  33. ND - again. According to you, this white spiral is in SPACE. Therefore, the size of the white spiral is ENORMOUS. End of case. This was not due to a 2 meter long rocket.

    The calculations will come out in time. Not now.

    Funny how you think I am making a "quick judgment based on looks". You are the one saying a 2 meter rocket created a perfectly spiraling, enormous swath in space that had motion for over 10 minutes.

    Let me ask you this: what is your motive for posting on this tiny, miniscule little blog? The "missile theory" already won, didn't it? That's what all the BS media reports are saying, right? So why would you waste your time with 26 people with an alternative view?

    You are clearly intelligent, but your logic doesn't make sense. You use broad-brushed rhetoric that attempts to expand the grey surrounding the black and white. You are here to simply add friction to the thoughts of people on this site. You, ND are a very interesting person.

  34. Pope Benedict XVI should not be writing articles that are not in his field of expertise ie.religion's a Russian missile plan and simple

  35. Haha - thanks for your post.


  36. I have a question if it was exhaust and all that and it was in space... how do you explain that the white spiral pretty much goes away in a uniform manner? By this I mean why does it seem to be that something in the middle seems to have pushed the white spiral from the middle and then finally dissipate it? If the middle focal point was the rocket wouldn't it have exploded, which would cause an explosion that should be visible, since the light from the so called engine part of the rocket is visible? It seems to me that the middle focal point just stops and then some sort of force causes that focal point to exert energy to push everything away from the middle

  37. Many people think it's related to EISCAT and or the LHC. Here are some articles, but other people commenting on the news articles feel the same way:

    - The Norway spiral does not look like any exhaust. It resembles more of a laser light show.
    - The spiral was a perfect symmetry and it maintained itself
    - What would cause the peculiar BLUE color?

    It is indeed interesting that the failed missile theory was presented before the Russians claimed it. The fact that even a theory was presented on hand is strange when you think about it. This was an unprecedented and extraordinary phenomenon that it seems strange any news agency could have even guessed at a theory, but they decided to present this failed missile theory anyways.

    I agree with this blogger and feel that as more facts are revealed that the failed missile theory will most likely crumble.

  38. Great points by both of you, thanks. Anon 1 - I agree 100% that it makes no sense whatsoever that the "missile" just happened to fizzle out. Anon 2 - I'll have to look into the EISCAT and LHC more. Thanks for the information.

  39. If it was as much exhaust/fuel as what would be required to fill up the sky as much as it did, why did it fizzle out so quickly after the "middle engine light fizzles".... I'm no scientist but if it was a conal shape and it was spinning for as long as it did, wouldn't the shape still remain even after the missile stopped spinning? What caused the sudden stop of white spiral that stayed for so long?

  40. Interesting illustrations and discussion:

  41. I pretty much agree with John, ND look at the forum last posted by the latest Anon. Now let's say the 3rd stage is where it boosts into space? So since your claiming that it was a conal shape and was viewable by us it's in the very high atmosphere or in space. For it to get this high wouldn't it have to already been in the 3rd stage?

    Now if it malfunctioned at some point in the height of it going into higher atmosphere/space the angle as far as I see that the blue "gas" is coming from seems to head towards the center of the spiral. If this is the case it would have had to drop at the same angle it came in to be positioned in the sky at the point where the white spiral is?

    If you look at the pictures it would seem that the blue "gas" shows it spinning gets to the middle then keeps spinning? So lets assume that the missile spun to get to the point where it's high atmosphere... so it would have to be that the missile had to get to at the very least the beginning of the 3rd stage for it to start spewing the white gas/liquid/whatever was in the 3rd stage at the height we assume the white spiral is. But this is flawed because the middle white light shows it perfectly in the middle of the spiral, how is the white spiral spreading that large across the sky? This is only possible if the missile kept spinning while it was near the end of our atmosphere at an incredible rate? But if the 3rd stage is the stage to get out of the atmosphere, why was such a large portion of the sky filled with the white spiral. I don't think it was possible for the spiral to continue while leaving the atmosphere at the same time the 3rd stage is active, unless both were going on at the same time. But if that's the case like I said I really doubt it should have covered that large of the portion of the sky

  42. what about the LHC that was recently switched on again? All the speculation that surrounded the collision of particles etc. Could this have some effect or could it be that we are slowly being conditioned to higher intelligence?

  43. Anonymous I stated something to the LHC earlier. Now let's say this collision of particles theoretically creates both positive and negative energy (from a mini big bang). According to the Rosen-Eisenberg Bridge theory a Lorentzian Wormhole can only be open for a very very very small time, which isn't enough time for a "vessel" to go through it. To keep this type of wormhole open, we would need to hold it open with something with negative mass or negative energy. Now lets say the LHC's negative energy that was hypothetically created was used, we could theoretically keep a Lorentzian wormhole open. This is all speculation because I'm not sure how much negative energy would be needed to do so, nor if we actually were able to create and maintain the wormhole, whether it was long enough for some sort of ship or anything to come through.

  44. All,

    Very interesting and pasionate debate. Thanks for all th eefforts and great sourcing.
    Looking forward to more on the subject.

    Regarding the lack of peoples interest in the matter and similar things, I think indewed unlkess there is a Twitter or Facebook group on it, poeple no longer pick up on things.

    To be honnest, it took me until today to go and look for any info on this phenomenon on google.. I just did not het round to it, even though I don;t even own a WII or PS :)

    Looking forward to learn more

  45. John,

    Do you think the current abnormal weather systems and vicious cold snap in Europe are related to this phenomenon? Especially if it is the result of ionispheric manipulation? I know you're of the belief that this light was the result of ET's, whether they be from time, space, or another dimension.

    Thank you for having the courage to attempt to expose these lies and promote the search for truth.

    Stay cool.

  46. Marz
    Thanks for your comments. Very interesting reading has got me gripped! The LHC was my first thought after hearing about the spiral so it's good to know I am not on my own thinking of this.

  47. You guy have some interesting theories!But i for one am the same page with john. I dont think it was a missle thats government bullshyt!

  48. I just noticed that somebody posted a link somewhere showing a similar missile thing and it showed a similar little swirl thing but it wasn't as massive as this. As John said this was quite massive and compared to the other russian missile, it didn't last as long as it was supposed to be for a missile that was failing.

  49. A couple earlier posts said that they could find no info on Bjorn Andreassen.

    I found many references easily.
    Googled `Bjorn Andreassen Stockholm University'

    and found references to scholarly works published by him.