It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof NASA Is Trying To Cover Up The Source Of The Norway Spiral!

page: 16
104
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 

The White Sea is southeast of Tromso, is it not? Is it north? Is it west?. No. It is southeast. The direction in which the spiral was seen.




posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by genius/idoit
It is a possibility that it is an astrological event.


What is an "astrological event"?

Is it the act of casting horoscopes?

Sorry, I just don't think that astrology is very useful... Not for explaining this event or for anything else...



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 


You migh have misunderstood me. What I wanted to say is that it's pointless to propose those alternative theories if you can't explain them. And most members seem to do this because it's in not to believe the official story.
The missile was proposed even before the russians confirmed it.
I totally agree with it unless someone provides some proof that supports some alternative theory.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I am surprised that you seem so adamant to believe that this can be rationally explained so easily as a missile launch.

First and foremost one of the most telling signs of truth in science is the concept of parsimony, or simplicity. If your answer is so simple and easily understood then some proof of it occurring at some other time must be presented.
Show me one other missile launch that produced a perfect blue spiral with a spherical blue light emanating from the center.

If you follow the principles of science then the undeniable answer that you cling to should be repeatable, several times over.

By that same token if we apply a null hypothesis to this theory of yours that it was a missile that caused this spiral, then your theory is either valid or invalid.
If you cannot produce another image of a missile producing the EXACT same phenomena, then your hypothesis is invalid.

Sorry dude, but that is how science works. Until it can be explained one way or another, and verified in repeatable experiments, then it is classified as of unknown origin.

You skeptics cling to "rationale" as if it were deified.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


What are you so confused about? White Sea = Russian waters. You yourself said that. Why do you mention Norway's waters?

And stop using the word secret. This missile is far from being secret.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 


I know I have never seen a celestial event look like that.
I know I have seen video and photos of missiles that have remarkably similar contrails.
I know the Russians admitted to having a failed missile that they launched from the white sea the same morning of the spiral.
I know the white sea is SE of Tromso, Norway.
I know the spiral appeared in the SE as well and it's contrail extended over the horizon to the SE (I know this from the photos).
I know that once outside the atmosphere the exhaust from the missile, now spinning out of control, would continue to move outward, undisturbed by wind, carried along by its own momentum to form a perfect spiral pattern.
This is what I know - If you were me what conclusion should I draw?

[edit on 11-12-2009 by 2 cents]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
It was a Russian missile.I am no longer upset.Thank you for that explanation.I will go back to work now.There is nothing to see here.I must remember not to get exited when I see things I don't understand.I will not question what any one is telling me.

I have conformed.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


The point I was trying to make was that the poster I replied to was asking someone to prove a negative. I have lost count of how many times (especially in the UFO forum) I have seen people bring any attempt by anyone to say 'well you can't prove it's not' to a crashing halt with the words 'you can't prove a negative'.... A concept I totally agree with, by the way.

Now, either the concept is a valid one, or it isn't ... It can't just be valid when it helps prove your point of view, and not valid if it doesn't.

As it happens, in my opinion it was most likely a rocket ... I will however keep my mind just open enough to accept the possibility it might have been something else.

On a final note, it bothers me not one wit if others here are certain of one explanation or another, or want to carry on discussing the event within this thread or any other. The only thing that really bugs me is those who wish to cut off any further discussion/speculation by others who might not be as convinced as them of what the object might or might not be.... you know, the 'already explained, nothing to see here' crowd.






posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 2 cents
 


That Russia fired 2 ICBMs over Norway,no biggie.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by genius/idoit
It was a Russian missile.I am no longer upset.Thank you for that explanation.I will go back to work now.There is nothing to see here.I must remember not to get exited when I see things I don't understand.I will not question what any one is telling me.

I have conformed.


ha ha


good, very good. You are learning.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 


Why are you people saying that the missile(s) were fired over Norway?
Do you know how stupid that makes you look?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 

Unless you can show me something exactly like this, I won't believe it's a snowflake. Science in action.




[edit on 12/11/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by kyleplatinum
More to add!....

People talking about the size of the plume....well here you go!


a night launch of a Minuteman III ICBM from Vandenberg Air Force Base




and another...



Those look familiar...
 




OK.....here is another!

and just to point out... this is how I would expect a missile spiraling out of control to look (not perfect at all!)



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DGFenrir
 


I am only one person.I think you are the only other person I am making look stupid.


But I'm not sure how much.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by genius/idoit]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kyleplatinum
 


Did you consider that those missiles may still be within the atmosphere? What would a missile out of control look like if it were in space - no air resistance?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 


Then show me on a map where exactly the missile(s) flew over Norway?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 2 cents
 


It would stand to reason in the vacuum of space the spiral would change with the velocity of the escaping gas.I would guess.
Or speed up continuously due to the lack of resistance.Either way the spiral would not remain symmetrical.

Because the factors in the equation do not remain constant.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by genius/idoit]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by kyleplatinum
 


In another thread it was just pointed out that the "spin" or more correctly corkscrew trajectory is actually intentional because they would be able to reach greater speeds. That would be a very good explanation on why the spiral looks so perfect.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by 2 cents
 


That Russia fired 2 ICBMs over Norway,no biggie.


By over you mean above Norway (as in perpendicular to the surface of the earth above Norway), correct?

When the sun is on the horizon is it over you? Wouldn't over you mean straight up?

[edit on 11-12-2009 by 2 cents]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Tromso is in Norhern of Norway on Artic Sea at 1,100 Km. far away from Arkhangelsk and the White Sea (Russia).



There is not a russian ICBM Missile!

The Spiral above Norway is something else!



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join