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.

 

Norway Lights a Rocket? Don't Make me LOL, Questions For The Supposed De Bunkers

page: 12
67
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
GAME OVER!!!! Check out this this thread!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


WOAH! Hold on, dont try to hijack the thread with that nonesense.
Besides that was ANOTHER Failed Russian Rocket. Get your facts right.




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I never understood how it as a rocket. The spiral is PERFECT. When a rocket fails it tears itself apart and crashes. Not t mention that when it ended, it ended in an absolute black spot, no light at all came from the end.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoiaFTW
I never understood how it as a rocket. The spiral is PERFECT. When a rocket fails it tears itself apart and crashes. Not t mention that when it ended, it ended in an absolute black spot, no light at all came from the end.


The rest of the sky was also pitch black, so why shouldnt it be black there also?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I am putting my money on a Norwegian HAARP test that showed to many colours.

I can not wait to see this story spin out of control!! First CGI Russian pyramids next, well i do not know.... But it will have lots of CGI!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cylon
I am putting my money on a Norwegian HAARP test that showed to many colours.

I can not wait to see this story spin out of control!! First CGI Russian pyramids next, well i do not know.... But it will have lots of CGI!


Yeah, and none of the neighbours to this so called HAARP-facility saw nothing?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Gromle
 


www.youtube.com...

at the center of the BLUE SPIRAL in the video of 0:10 you can see a formation starting which appears to be a black hole forming out of the blue spiral.


At 0:12 you can see what we call a min black hole or what it appears to be a min Black hole from that point it still grows but slowly it faints away.


I cant believe some of you missed that.
and were quick to join the missile or rocket crowd.



[edit on 13-12-2009 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Agent_USA_Supporter]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


There wasnt anything coming out of it, or going into it.

That video is not good, its a lot darker than the real event.
And do you think it was filmed with? Probably some average compact camera..



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gromle
 


then your eyes needs a checking buddie no offence.
if you didnt see that then thats a problem.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Gromle
 


then your eyes needs a checking buddie no offence.
if you didnt see that then thats a problem.


Or perhaps you need to stop looking for things that aint there..

Funny how none of buddies saw this formation either....



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
To All of those who don't believe this was Rocket

Arguments by this group have included all sorts of claims to substantiate their beliefs when it's all been based on ignorance, though I'm sure it may not be intentional for some of you...

Please visit the link I've provided that shows quite a number of pictures of ICBM's after launch.

Take notice of the pictures which show the missile being fired "over populated areas".

Also take notice of the exhaust plumes and compare them to the ones seen after the Norway launch.

Finally take notice of this picture of a blue cloud after a missile launch.. and the photographers explanation..



On October 14th, 2002, the Missile Defense Agency launched a Minuteman II as part of a test of the new "Ground-Based Midcourse Defense". There were thick clouds overhead so I didn't think I would get to see anything of the launch, but I was wrong - the contrail was lit by sunlight and was spectacular. So spectacular that I got excited and bumped the camera, ruining the image of the missile going up! The missile launched from lower right and headed towards the upper left. The blue cloud is from the missile.

Pics from norway of exhaust plumes for comparison:






Now, while the pictures on this site do not necessarily show a failed launch and what it's after effects may look like it clearly shows a blue cloud and exhaust plumes which are seen in Norway...

www.moonglow.net...

Video of a rocket launch from Russia in 2006 which shows the initial stages of a spiral formation... ( you can also see bluish exhaust emanating from the rocket at 4 secs in)

(at 14 secs in you'll see the "blackhole" effect similar to what happened in Norway)




Can we put this to bed now?

[edit on 13-12-2009 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
i would like as a new member to ask the question or suppose the following for disscusion

1 copenhagan is going on while at the same time a ground base weather alteration prototype is being tested as a protest to the climate debate to pose the question why is man controlled weather not allowed to be discussed when there is a UN treaty on weather changing methods and use?

2 this looks very simular to the descriptions i have read on a weather machine Nikola tesla invented and tested (as the tale goes nicola prevented a weather front from moving over and parked in on a state boarder it was only when asked to cease did the storm roll over

please reply direct



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


that looks photo shopped that wasnt there at the first photo that came out.



the last bottom photos of your post look very photoshop i can tell, i having been using photoshop.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Agent_USA_Supporter]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


that looks photo shopped that wasnt there at the first photo that came out.



the last bottom photos of your post look very photoshop i can tell, i having been using photoshop.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Agent_USA_Supporter]




Did you even look at the link I provided...

Are you really that ignorant man?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
Missiles fired over water, debris will be lost.

The pattern formed is because of an open camera shutter, it will smooth everything out. Hence, perfect spiral rings.

And twas a calm night, not much smoke dissapation.

I am reasonably confident that it was a missile or something, it just makes sense.

I'd like to believe it alien or other worldly too, but its not, just a spinning missile with smoke belching out the side.


What he means by the debris is the sudden explosion of a rocket in air, remember the Shuttle and other NASA air vehicles that blow up in the sky. You see a fiery flash and lighted debris taking up the whole sky, and on top of that once it happens the last direction that the vehicle is going is where the debris field will go toward. It wasn't a rocket but something else that they are trying to hid.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
It's great this thread is. I just had a channelling session with my spirit guide alien Alex Cauliflower. We got into an argument.

"WOW look at that spiral, I've NEVER seen anything like that, it's extraordinary!!!"

"Extraordinary, but probably a missile."

"It wasn't a missile it's too extraordinary"

"But a test was announced, in advance, on NAVTEX, and a test was scheduled for the end of December 2009"

"It wasn't a missile it's too extraordinary!!!"

"But the Russians have confirmed it!!!"

"They didn't say it caused the lights!!!!!!!"

"But where was the Russian missile in the White Sea if the spiral wasn't it?"

"It wasn't a missile it's too extraordinary!!! Perfect spiral!!!"

"But what about all of the explanations about glowing exhaust on the edge of space?"

"I tell you what, I've got a great book you can read about it!!! And all about disclosure"

"Oh, do bog off Alex"

Then we got into an argument about dream catchers and whether Poltergeist 3 was a good film, so I gave up.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


that looks photo shopped that wasnt there at the first photo that came out.



the last bottom photos of your post look very photoshop i can tell, i having been using photoshop.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Agent_USA_Supporter]




Did you even look at the link I provided...

Are you really that ignorant man?


If he's drinking "Keeping It-Real" Malt Liquor it has half the calories...All the ignorance. I hear people that believe the Rocket theory like the flavor of it.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hoghead cheese

Originally posted by Toadmund
Missiles fired over water, debris will be lost.

The pattern formed is because of an open camera shutter, it will smooth everything out. Hence, perfect spiral rings.

And twas a calm night, not much smoke dissapation.

I am reasonably confident that it was a missile or something, it just makes sense.

I'd like to believe it alien or other worldly too, but its not, just a spinning missile with smoke belching out the side.


What he means by the debris is the sudden explosion of a rocket in air, remember the Shuttle and other NASA air vehicles that blow up in the sky. You see a fiery flash and lighted debris taking up the whole sky, and on top of that once it happens the last direction that the vehicle is going is where the debris field will go toward. It wasn't a rocket but something else that they are trying to hid.


But there wasnt any explosion this time, it just died quietly.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by captiva

As a fully qualified to post grad level photographer and practicing all forms of photography professionally ..with respects, this sentence is 100% wrong.

1. The video camera/s used to take the video do not work on the principle of long exposure times. They capture the motion.

2. Any still frame film or digital cameras would have been able to catch any second of the full event with no more than 1/100th if using a low ISO setting and as fast as 1/1000th if using a high ISO and fast lens. ie F2.8

To those that stated that night shooting = longer shutter times....you are wrong. The speed of todays lenses running a maximum apperture of f2.8 with the ISO settings on board up to date cameras means that the shutter does not need to remain open. Canons cheapest lens the 50mm prime is an F 1.8 lense and would catch the immage in as little as 1/500th of a second.

I now call the shutter speed argument 100% debunked.

Respects.




I don't believe for a second you are a fully qualified photographer.

Night shooting = longer shutter times = fact

It would take someone very foolish to claim otherwise. Are you really trying to say that during the night time there is as much available light as day time?

Raise the ISO? True you can do this but you can do it in the daytime as well, you will still need a longer exposure than an equivalent shot in day time, or are you claiming that using a high ISO really makes up for the difference between NIGHT and DAY.

Fast aperture lens? Yes this can increase shutter speed too but at the expense of depth of field and here is where your claims of being a qualified photographer fall short.

Anybody with even a small amount of photographic knowledge can see that the depth of field in the night photos is far too large to have been taken with a lens set to a large aperture. The most glaringly obvious ones must surely be the ones that have cars and street lights sharply in focus in the foreground but also the spiral some 300 plus miles away also in focus, not to mention distant mountains.

The look of the photo, the motion blur in the spiral and trails are hallmarks of long exposure times, the cleanness of the images seems directly related to the size of the spiral. Clean noise free images, obviously taken at low ISO settings and hence using a slower shutter speed have a larger and smoother spiral due to motion blur. Images taken at higher ISO settings and exhibiting image noise have smaller spirals due to the faster shutter speeds. This backs up my point that images taken with slow shutter speeds do not accurately portray what the naked eye saw.

I would love to see a photo taken by you with an f/2.8 lens at ISO 1600 in the PITCH BLACK that has a shutter speed of 1/1000th because you have a device that can cheat science!

Night exposures as a rule require longer exposures, slower shutter speeds and although you can get around this a small amount by adjusting aperture and ISO your claims are unrealistic and at best hopelessly optimistic.

Photographers have already claimed using long exposures and tripods, we already know these were not high ISO large aperture shots because the ones in question, the ones I am claiming are not accurate to what happened in real time have neither high amounts of noise associated with high ISO settings and nor do they have a very small depth of field that is associated with larger apertures.

If you were a competent photographer, let alone a qualified one you would be able to tell just by looking at the photos that they were long exposures taken with a slow shutter speed, we don't know what shutter speed exactly but considering the photographers have already explained they used tripods we can safely rule out the kind of shutter speeds that would allow the cameras to be hand held.


And another thing, VIDEO CAMERAS HAVE SHUTTER SPEEDS TOO

How can you claim to be a qualified photographer when you don't even know that?

When you take a video it is a series of still images that are taken at a certain shutter speed, just like with a still camera. Video cameras have to use a slower shutter speed at night time too, just not to as great an extent as a still camera.

You really seem to have no fundamental knowledge about photographic exposure in the slightest, you must have skipped your first class or something.

PS: I now call your qualified photographer argument 100% debunked.





[edit on 13-12-2009 by fatdeeman]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by magestyk7
 


If he's drinking "Keeping It-Real" Malt Liquor it has half the calories...All the ignorance. I hear people that believe the Rocket theory like the flavor of it.

Post of last resort as usual for the True Believers! Stick to your dogma!
When the FACTS clearly prove you wrong, insult the opposition. How enlightened and open minded of you!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by magestyk7
 


If he's drinking "Keeping It-Real" Malt Liquor it has half the calories...All the ignorance. I hear people that believe the Rocket theory like the flavor of it.

Post of last resort as usual for the True Believers! Stick to your dogma!
When the FACTS clearly prove you wrong, insult the opposition. How enlightened and open minded of you!


I'm trying but there's no hope for some people...

How's the saying go

You could lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink.... or is it a horse's ass

[edit on 13-12-2009 by PhotonEffect]



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join