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: 13
67
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by unicorn1
reply to post by Nocturnalfear
 


Is English not your first language Nocturnalfear? People unfamiliar with a language often pick a word from the dictionary which doesn't work in the context they are aiming for - they simply don't understand the nuances. The word decline does not make sense in this context as already pointed out by hank. The word you need is 'deny' as already pointed out.
Decline means to refuse or reject in the sense of declining an offer, a drink, a date, a pay rise...



[edit on 13-12-2009 by unicorn1]


I don't understand why I'm arguing English but Deny is part of the word Decline

As per the English Thesaurus heres your deny


Main Entry: decline
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: say no
Synonyms:
abjure, abstain, avoid, balk, beg to be excused, bypass, demur, deny, desist, disapprove, dismiss, don't buy, forbear, forgo, gainsay, nix, not accept, not hear of, not think of, pass on, refrain, refuse, reject, renounce, reprobate, repudiate, send regrets, shy, spurn, turn down, turn thumbs down

So yes they did deny connection between their missile and the lights seen over Norway




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Im going to deny ignorance by asking a few questions instead of focusing on the actual video or still shots.

Feel free to enlighten me with any evidenced answers please. All of the questions below are based on this statement.

" Whether a missile or a new unknown phenomenom, are there logical steps, statements or events that I think should have taken place since the night of the spiral"

1. If a missile, why has there been absolutly no condemnation of the Russians. Especially when looking at the world condemnation of the Korean launches considering we had prior knowledge of those.

2. If a missile, why was there someone in the right spot to capture the failure on video and more importantly on digital or film stills. I have noted that there is a photograph that is noise free and was not in my opinion a frame lifted from a video. This photograph, which shows the spiral in almost full size has been taken with a fast F2.8 lens to get the sharp capture. There is no sign of blur so a fast shutter speed was used.

With the above in mind, I propose that there had to have been knowledge of the event before the failure. And knowledge that there was something special going to be available to photograph.

If the photographer wanted a photograph of the missile then he/she would have been situated where the best chance of a photograph would have been. (near the launch? at a coastline closest to the launch site?)

For anyone questioning my views on the photograph. I am a professional photographer qualified to post grad level.

I will not get into coincidences so wont raise the Obama visit.

3. Why did the Russians first deny any connection between the spiral and their missile, only to confirm it after the fact?

4. Why has the msm jumped on the strangness, UFO, "out there" aspect of the event and not the Russian launch even though the Russians say there missile failed. ( But still avoid admitting "It was us")

Why have so many people matter of factly accepted the missile theory where as yet all I see is probability. I have seen no hard evidence of it being a missile.

Sometimes it is more fruitfull to look at what is not said when looking at the bigger picture.

Respects


[edit on 13-12-2009 by captiva]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo515
 


1. It was a long, long, long way away (not even over Norway, but over the sea)

2. It was over the sea - all the debris was lost to the depths

3. Because it wasn't in Norway, but over the sea

4. Yes, especially when the physics, shipping warnings, and videos all show the exact same thing as the official reports

5. It wasn't perfect. It was a single failure on a rocket. It's physics that is perfect, not the failure

6. Because, as you said, 10% of them don't explode.

NEXT!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackphotohobby
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


Following up from post by captiva
 


I'm wrong here. Apologies captiva (and apologies everyone else for the camera nerdery - it is related to the spiral photos though). Just to be thorough I popped outside with a DX DSLR/tripod, and got some reasonable shots of street lights at ISO-200 F1.8 1/60th second. So you're partly right, and apologies for being snarky. An incident meter was a stupid choice on my part. It would have been better to have tested with a modern matrix meter first. However, these reasonable shots of street lights weren't uniformly exposed well, the majority of the scene was very much underexposed. If I wanted a reasonable exposure like the Norway shots I'd still have to resort to a longer shutter speed or increase the ISO.

However, I still think the shots were long exposures, because of the lack of visible noise, that the scene is well exposed overall, the difference in the width of the spiral between the videos and photos. The rocket wasn't moving fast enough in the videos to have its spiral trajectory captured with a fast shutter speed.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by jackphotohobby]


Don't forget that street lights would be a much much much brighter light source than this rocket that was literally hundreds of miles away would have been, there is no need to apologise. In this situation an incident meter would be more accurate. If you were able to point your DSLR at the sky at a faint light source it would meter in a more similar way to the incident meter.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I almost done with this forum, why? i cant stand the idiotic of some who say it was a missile and who were so quick to join the bandwagon with the media.


So much for ATS uncovering government serects, no offence mods you being great mods to this very forum site




I will still stick around just for few, i will say this if this happens again, and it gets covered as a missile failed up test again i would laugh out loud.



I will still stand by my theory it was HARRP.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
It was in the middle of the morning rush, so lots of people running around to see it.

Just right of the spiral is a mountain called Tromsdalstinden, a popular target for photographers, and in the morning light it can a stunning sight. So its not unusual to see photographers ready to capture it.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
I almost done with this forum, why? i cant stand the idiotic of some who say it was a missile and who were so quick to join the bandwagon with the media.


So much for ATS uncovering government serects, no offence mods you being great mods to this very forum site




I will still stick around just for few, i will say this if this happens again, and it gets covered as a missile failed up test again i would laugh out loud.



I will still stand by my theory it was HARRP.


And from where would this HAARP-tech be used?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Holy crap people, I can't believe you are still discussing this absolute CRAP!

Un-glue your faces from the computer and go and watch a real missile/rocket launch and you will know what they look like. Until then you all sound like clueless sheeple. The people who know the truth are laughing at you. There is nothing more funny than people trying to describe and debunk something they are so clueless about.

This was a failed launch! Nothing else.

Watch this video:


Now just imagine the rocket/missile lost control and started to spin on an off axis with excess forward momentum. That would cause the missile to fly in a corkscrew motion. The centrifugal forces would fling the white smoke or spent gas outward, and it would continue outward, and would create a perfect spiral that is expanding slowly.

Don't be fooled by the trick photography either. Compare multiple pictures of the same event and you will see that a few photos of the event were using slow shutter speeds to capture the entire path of the launch.

Here is some photos of people taking advantage of slow shutter speeds and lights... doing paintings...



Here is how it is done:


Some pictures of the spiral had a long shutter speed so they are confusing everyone to think there is more going on....

It's just a failed laugh, it has happened before, and will happen again.

What you should really be curious about is all the people who claim it isn't a rocket launch or is some type of wormhole or blackhole, and the 1000's of videos on YouTube claiming that.... you got to wonder why people would take such a simple mundane thing and make it into more... It's deceptive... they are all liars praying off the weak minded.

They ask yourself, how did you get fooled into thinking it wasn't a failed launch?

Wake up... you are fooling your selves.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I agree with the OP.

I'v seen heaps of video's of exploding (if this is exploding that is) objects (no expert still)
And Have NEVER seen anything like that.

Question is if its not a rocket, then what is it...???

Some people need an answer and go for the easy one or one given...
Its NOT ALWAYS RIGHT people!!

And then some go for the extraordinary answer which would spice up their reality...

That to is definately not always right... (however i would sometimes love it t be true
)

Just something to mull over



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I can't help but notice that the rocket failure you posted doesn't look anything like this thing over Norway.

Can you post any rocket failures that DO look like the thing over Norway?


Besides not being the right shape, the clouds are also much messier and less exact than the spiral over Norway.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by captiva
1. If a missile, why has there been absolutly no condemnation of the Russians. Especially when looking at the world condemnation of the Korean launches considering we had prior knowledge of those.


Prior knowledge does not mean that Korea's missile launches were seen as an acceptable act. Russia's missile test was not only pre-declared but done so in the way that was established AFTER the Norwegian Missle Scare of the 80's. All of the people that were supposed to be notified were.


2. If a missile, why was there someone in the right spot to capture the failure on video and more importantly on digital or film stills.


My best guess? The Geminid Meteor Showers peak this week.


3. Why did the Russians first deny any connection between the spiral and their missile, only to confirm it after the fact?


Why does any government do anything when relating to Defense. Secrecy.


4. Why has the msm jumped on the strangness, UFO, "out there" aspect of the event and not the Russian launch even though the Russians say there missile failed. ( But still avoid admitting "It was us")


Weirdness sells. The Mundane does not. Although, who in the MSM is saying that this is anything but a failed rocket launch?


Why have so many people matter of factly accepted the missile theory where as yet all I see is probability. I have seen no hard evidence of it being a missile.


Because, when people do not know about something for themselves, they look to people that DO know about things. The Educated among us have stated TO A PERSON that it was a rocket. I am satisfied.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GallopingFish
 


It was HAARP blasting open a wormhole over Norway with their new plasma beam.

Now I can sleep tonight.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


I'm almost done with ATS, you want to know why?

Because a majority of the people on ATS take something mundane and then swear up and down it is something special... Even when others know for a fact it is mundane, there is a bunch of confused people spreading their ignorance like a virus.

People are so convinced that it is something special that they speak with more excitement.. and then weak minds feed off that and they think the confused are sincere so they believe them, but really they are just confused and lost.

It's getting really stupid here, it's become child's play. ATS used to be full of older more mature people looking for truth but now it is full of young kids who trample over truth and are more interested in science fiction.

I'm starting to not even want to be seen next to some people on ATS or someone might think I am one of "them" who take their confusion and spread b.s. to other confused people and start a chain reaction of ignorance.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
The question I guess I would like answering is why do people want to believe that this is something more than a rocket? Or even want it to be something more? Why can’t people just be satisfied with the life they have around them instead of looking beyond this planet all the time?

I really hope that someone will announce soon that aliens do exist. Then we can all get on with our lives and over the hype. Also, to the OP, I really think you need to come up with some better questions if you want to make an argument about this not been a rocket.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by jackitin]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


"Some photographs had a long shutter speed" How on earth can you state this without seeing the exif details? That comment is prefabricated and does the rest of your argument no good at all.

A slow shutter speed used to capture the event from the start till the end of the spiral would only show a large circular blur with no ridges and no depth.

Respects



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by captiva
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


"Some photographs had a long shutter speed" How on earth can you state this without seeing the exif details? That comment is prefabricated and does the rest of your argument no good at all.

A slow shutter speed used to capture the event from the start till the end of the spiral would only show a large circular blur with no ridges and no depth.

Respects


Why is the photo brighter than it really was that time of day? Just asking, couse im not that into photography.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Gromle]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo515
1. SOUND- Rockets make a lot of it...why is there none in the VIDEOS?

2. DEBRIS- No reports of any being found

3. POSITION- Why are there no side on photographs and/or video of the lights? what, everyone filming and taking photos all across Norway just happened to be standing DIRECTLY in front of it to give it THIS spiral effect?...I don't think so.

4. VALIDITY- As always, can we rely on the official report given our governments (especially Russia's) track record?

5. PRECISION- How can a failed rocket launch be so PERFECT

6. ILLUMINATION- If it were a failed rocket...would it not explode like 90% of them? where is the ka-boom! where is the light given off in such an event!...there is none. Which brings us back to our 2nd question, where is the debris??


[edit on 13-12-2009 by Griffo515]

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Griffo515]

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Griffo515]


1- Amateurs always have the best equipment on hand just for your (yes you) personal satisfaction.

2- wasn't the rocket from russia? Could it be that a russian rocket would have debris in russia?

3- I'm not going to explain the basic principles of vision in relation to celestial bodies to you. Wiki is your friend.

4- The only thing you're asking which most people, including myself, could agree with.

5- I'm glad your definition (whatever that may be) is the same as everyone elses in the world.

6- I'm presuming you realize that "rocket" is not synonymous with "explosive" or "warhead". If it were I'm sure the astronauts of the 60s and 70 would've been in for a huge suprise.

You really didn't think your questions through, and you're expecting others to draw out what you should've asked/do work for you.

Thus

7- No.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
This ones gonna run and run look at this !
www.stuff.co.nz...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I can't help but notice that the rocket failure you posted doesn't look anything like this thing over Norway.


That is because I didn't post a rocket failure, I posted a successful launch. It was to show you the white trail, and then I asked you to imagine it in a spiral, and you get the same thing.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you post any rocket failures that DO look like the thing over Norway?


Yes, I can. Here is another spiral that happened in 2006 in Russia:



As you can see in the beginning it looks exactly like successful launch, then something went wrong and started to spiral. The camera didn't film long enough but it is the same type of spiral... if they filmed longer you would get the same thing as in the OP. It is a confirmed rocket/missile launch gone bad. It even looks like a classic rocket/missile at first....

There is even another video from China with a spiral failure.
It's happened before and will happen again...

OF course you wont EVER get the same exact result because they would have to do the launch on the same exact day, and same exact time to get the lighting correct. Then it would have to be launched in the same direction... and also fail exactly the same. So there will always be differences..


Originally posted by bsbray11
Besides not being the right shape, the clouds are also much messier and less exact than the spiral over Norway.


Wanting them to look exactly the same is expecting way too much... That is like asking two different car crashes to look exactly the same. There will always be differences.

You should have a powerful enough brain to compare them and see the similarities... but I guess that is asking to much too. You are stuck on the differences which is causing your confusion.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 


"Because, when people do not know about something for themselves, they look to people that DO know about things. The Educated among us have stated TO A PERSON that it was a rocket. I am satisfied."

I like many people have learned to think for myself and not rely on the educated people to a person to do so for me. I am an educated person having 3 degrees and a post graduate in 3 diffirent fields and " TO A PERSON" I disagree with your views. I also note that the one area I mentioned I am qualified in, you did not quote.

Sheeple following the educated among us is as bad as sheeple following anything or anyone else.

Respects



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join