Proof NASA Is Trying To Cover Up The Source Of The Norway Spiral!, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 104 times


reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:25 PM by Blender
Originally posted by Reddupo
How did the spiral get so big and stay so uniform and perfect?



I imagine in space that perfection might make more sense but not in our atmosphere...



They are saying that the "failed rocket" was in the upper atmosphere, where there is no wind. It would have had to have been a cloudless night in order to see something take place in our upper atmosphere, but for some reason not a single star is visible in any of the footage, telling me that the night was not cloudless at all.


reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:26 PM by Jim Scott
reply to post by madness


The blue beam was not connecting to the ground. It was a trail behind the spiraling rocket. The perspective is off because it is a 2D photo. The rocket launched, went out of control and spiraled toward it's final point where the "wheel spiral" occurred. You can see the blue trail of it spiraling on it's way to the end of the trajectory, where the "wheel spiral" effect ended. The "black hole" at the end is the result of the centrifugal force jetting the remaining fuel away from the rocket.



reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:27 PM by RestingInPieces
Originally posted by Reddupo
How did the spiral get so big and stay so uniform and perfect?



I imagine in space that perfection might make more sense but not in our atmosphere...


Because it was a ballistic missile with a range of 5,000 miles carrying thousands of pounds of fuel, and was over 100,000 up as it put on the show, and not a stupid toy?


reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:28 PM by nunya13
reply to post by IceDash



I know that, but you know what my point was. It was the only footage I could find offhand of a rocket spiraling out of control. You're saying there NO WAY that could happen in the real world?


reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:28 PM by Jim Scott
reply to post by Blender


Photography at night is different, requiring exposure time to show the stars. If there is a light present, the stars will be obscured by the bright light, and it will appear there are no stars. The same effect is noted on the Apollo photos when you look at the sky in space. No stars, or only the brightest stars, because of the bright illumination of the ground and astronauts.


reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:30 PM by IceDash
reply to post by nunya13



I don't trust anything what they said, they always have "half-truth" everytime.



reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:33 PM by Blender
Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to
post by Blender


Photography at night is different, requiring exposure time to show the stars. If there is a light present, the stars will be obscured by the bright light, and it will appear there are no stars. The same effect is noted on the Apollo photos when you look at the sky in space. No stars, or only the brightest stars, because of the bright illumination of the ground and astronauts.


I understand that a bright light would obscure lesser lights in the sky, but after the brightness of the event is gone, you can still see no stars. As far as photographing a star at night, take your camera, walk outside tonite and snap a picture of a star. Tell me if it shows up.


reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:33 PM by Jim Scott
reply to post by ALLis0NE



Good find on the old 2006 video. That makes a strong case for the rocket. Next question, why are the Russians having a problem developing a rocket, when they are the rocket specialists? Is this a new kind of propulsion?


reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:34 PM by Aggie Man
Originally posted by IceDash
reply to
post by Aggie Man



really?! show us your "number of video" you just so happen to said.....

come on, show us EXACTLY like that vid from other vid without a shape photoshop joke, come on Debunky...


Usually I would tell you to go find it yourself; however, as I happen to be looking right now...here you go:



This one is a computer simulation, but accurate nonetheless:




reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:36 PM by Phage
reply to post by Blender


The effluent is in motion away from the rocket. It is not hanging in space like smoke in the atmosphere. It moves radially from the point it originated. When the ejection of the material stops, the material that has already been ejected continues to move away.


reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:39 PM by Phage
reply to post by Blender


Look at image #2 here:
www.altaposten.no...
That could be a star over the mountains.

Now look at image #8.
There were a few low clouds but the sky was quite clear. It was certainly not overcast. Maybe you can't see stars because it was early morning twilight.


reply posted on 11-12-2009 @ 03:40 PM by ALLis0NE
reply to post by Jim Scott



Not all rockets are created equal.

Crap happens.

All the glowing plumes and stuff is normal.. sometimes they make rainbows.

Here is a website with some really good rocket launch pictures...

www.moonglow.net...

Here is a good one:



I'm surprised ATS isn't 100% familiar with this stuff by now.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



May 20/21, 2012: the true meaning.
  Posted 8 days ago with 25 member flags
Cool Eclipse pictures (Earth, Moon, Sun, Pleiades)
  Posted 7 days ago with 24 member flags
Why the 2012 Phenomenon is Real!
  Posted 10 days ago with 21 member flags
World Message: Beginning May 26 thru Dec 21
  Posted 9 days ago with 14 member flags
newly discovered mayan calendars go beyond 2012
  Posted 17 days ago with 12 member flags
OMG: 2012 KP24 Incoming! Are we Doomed?
  Posted 3 days ago with 10 member flags
Secret rogue planet may be hiding behind Neptune
  Posted 13 days ago with 7 member flags
Is This How the REVOLUTION Begins?
  Posted 13 days ago with 7 member flags