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: 21
67
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by maxxsee
 


Ahhhh! YouTube! The GREAT SOURCE OF ALL WISDOM!
Don't bother folks, that anonymous video is a complete waste of time.
And I'm being as polite as I can.
The mysterious World music is very convincing though.
Good grief!


[edit on 15-12-2009 by OldDragger]




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:02 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??


You do know that the Russian Blackjack has been retrofitted with 8the generation combat stealth and plasma skin along with satellite defense and attack capability's. It is rumored that the famous video of something or as some suggested harp weapon firing at a ufo was in fact a blackjack at high altitude shooting at a target drone. Oh i guess your not too familiar that both the U.S. and Russia do launch low orbit drones for ground target practice. Do you think a multi billion dollar defense system is purely based on ground to ground missiles ?

Welcome to the new age of weapons, oops well they are about 20 years old. Lets re think what i have posted here. The stealth first made its debut in the 90's yet its manufacturing date was the 70's.

The lights are on but nobody is home.

You do know that the Russian Missile Defence upgrade from 2007 has been suggested and equalled to nothing from this world. (Space


plasma..._stealth.totallyexplained.com/
www.rense.com...
www.chemie.de...

[edit on 15-12-2009 by tristar]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
You do know that the Russian Missile Defence upgrade from 2007 has been suggested and equalled to nothing from this world. (Space


I don't even know what this means, how it relates to the Norway spiral, and why I should believe merely on your say-so. What's a checkable link, and please, not to the "peter beater" guy (I'm NOT making up his name, and he's involved in the debate too, now).



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by maxxsee
 


Maxxsee..... supporting another hoax again I see?

Your video asks, "Why does the light start to disappear from the center of the spiral and move outwards?".

The particles, which are lit by the Sun and make white light, were ejected from a spinning missile. When something spins it creates a centrifugal force which is an outward force from the center. This ejects the white stuff outward from the center.

Have you ever seen a spinning water sprinkler?


You are basically asking why the water leaves the center and moves outwards.


It's caused by centrifugal force, and the force of it being ejected.

Then the video asks; "If there was one light source why didn't the light disappear all at once when the light source went out?".

The only light source was the Sun. The missile was so high in the sky that it was in direct sunlight. Unless the Sun went out, the affluent would still be lit up.

The affluent which was ejected from the missile was lit by the Sun. When the affluent stopped ejecting from the missile, the affluent in space was still there and still moving away from the center, and still lit by the Sun.

It's like turning off the spinning water sprinkler and still seeing the last amounts of water still flying through the air.

Then the video says; "and if it went out slowly, wouldn't the edges of the spiral go out first?".

No.... the edges are still being lit by the Sun. However, if you look closely, the edges go out after the affluent has dispersed far enough away from the center.

Then the video says; "Yet we see the 'black hole' expand from the center of the spiral".

There is no "black hole". The black circle in the center is the absence of affluent. Since the affluent is traveling outwards, the absence of affluent in the center increases, and more of the dark sky is seen in the center.

It's just a failed missile. There is nothing else that can describe it as perfect as a failed missile.

Maxxsee, this topic will turn out like your hoax topic did.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxxsee
Rocket theory debunked


Tell him to use 'Spellcheck' if he doesn't want to be laughed off the thread.

The 'light source' is, first, the sun -- it's shining at the rocket's altitude -- and second, chemical luminescence of the engine plume interacting at very high speed with very thin ionosphere. We see it all the time in rocket launchings.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Only the light dissapears in the middle first where the "black hole" appears. This black hole explands as you can see in the vid I posted www.youtube.com...
As it goes out it goes out very fast, in a second or so. Therefore it couldn't have been a rocket. If the light would have gone out the edges would turn black first since the smoke must be thinner at the edges.

Yet we see the black hole start from the center on the spiral. Just doesn't make sence.

Another thing is that there are 3 spirals. Not 2 spirals like the animation shows. Also the proportions of blue and white spiral are different, yet they come from same source.
Perspectives are wrong aswell. Blue spiral from side and white spirals from straight ahead.

So if you don't mind me saying so, Yes Rocket theory doesn't add up atm.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by tristar
You do know that the Russian Missile Defence upgrade from 2007 has been suggested and equalled to nothing from this world. (Space


I don't even know what this means, how it relates to the Norway spiral, and why I should believe merely on your say-so. What's a checkable link, and please, not to the "peter beater" guy (I'm NOT making up his name, and he's involved in the debate too, now).






Please enlighten me on what is your opinion of this light show.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
Please enlighten me on what is your opinion of this light show.


Why do you deserve a one-on-one remedial tutorial?

Read the real discussion here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
It's easy to say that the emissions from some rocket could stay in place that well, but I'm still yet to see a video that shows it.

Gases that are heated or are not otherwise atmospheric temperature are going to move in relation to the atmosphere when they are introduced to it. Not in a spiral, either, but expanding in all directions if it's warm, or generally trail upwards, or carried with a light breeze.


There is plenty enough information in the spiral itself, just by looking at it, to tell that a rocket didn't do it. I have to say that I think the people claiming it is a rocket as if they actually know, are way too hasty in their judgments and also aren't very intuitively discriminating in a physics/thermodynamics sense. The motion at the center of it isn't like a failing rocket/missile, the spiral generated around it is too perfect and too steady, etc.

I don't know what it is, but you guys claiming it was a rocket/missile and trying to stamp your feet down are going to stamp them to death, because you are never going to be able to convince everybody of a theory that just doesn't really work. Sounds nice, offers a possible explanation on the surface (with the general motion the fuel or whatever else would be released, etc.), but beyond that you have total crap and that's why you're going to be here arguing with people indefinitely.

I really think it's silly that you lot are so quickly convinced and then go on zealously defending and promoting your opinions here like you have something to gain from them. You have no idea what in the hell this thing is.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I really think it's silly that you lot are so quickly convinced and then go on zealously defending and promoting your opinions here like you have something to gain from them. You have no idea what in the hell this thing is.


The topic has been discussed to death. There is more than enough evidence to prove it was a rocket on this thread and the other dozen the anti-rocket zealots posted to deny the evidence. Learn to read the thread before making sweeping (ignorant) statements.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is plenty enough information in the spiral itself, just by looking at it, to tell that a rocket didn't do it. I have to say that I think the people claiming it is a rocket as if they actually know, are way too hasty in their judgments and also aren't very intuitively discriminating in a physics/thermodynamics sense. The motion at the center of it isn't like a failing rocket/missile, the spiral generated around it is too perfect and too steady, etc.

Excactely. Great point too!
There are several points that points towards somthing else than a rocket for sure. You have to keep an open mind about them to see them though.
If not you only believe what you want to believe.
Some ppl really need to start opening their minds to what can be out there or to be exact, here.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
There is no way that it was a rocket.

Do you really think that russia sends a rocket over to norway the day that obama commes? thats like playing with fire.. something smells bad here..

is north korea sends a missile over 2 usa what happens..

is russia had sendt a rocket obama would never have came.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Dry_bones
 

Right. It would have been bad if Russia had sent a missile to Norway.
But they didn't. They sent a missile to Russia.

[edit on 12/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by maxxsee
 

Open your mind enough and your brains fall out.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kirksteruk2k10
There is more than enough evidence to prove it was a rocket on this thread and the other dozen the anti-rocket zealots posted to deny the evidence. Learn to read the thread before making sweeping (ignorant) statements.


Ok then. I'm assuming you know what real proof is.

Show me the proof.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Show me the proof.


Here's the thread with the real meat on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:32 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. Rocket was above the atmosphere!

2. If rocket is high enough it won't fall down!

3. Location? Therefore no side photographs!

4. You don't need to rely on official reports to SEE it was an ICBM Rocket launch!

5. Be so what? Maybe they're testing out a new form of propulsion?

6. If there is NO warhead in it, then it won't explode!

7. There was also some kind of exhaust trail signifying a rocket launch, and it narrows down as it gets closer to the ground, signifying a ground source, and high winds in the upper atmosphere!

8. Go read up on some REAL UFO abductions for a change!



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by bsbray11
Show me the proof.


Here's the thread with the real meat on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Sorry but can you be more specific? All I am seeing is circumstantial evidence, ie a rocket could also make this pattern in theory, at least according to these people.

I already said I was assuming you guys know what the technical definition of proof is, like the kind of proof you convict murderers with. If all you got is circumstantial then they still go free.


So make up your minds. Is there something specific that proves it was a rocket, or no?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So make up your minds. Is there something specific that proves it was a rocket, or no?


Start with this post by Phage
 


Along with this that clearly indicates missile:



[edit on 16-12-2009 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


That is circumstantial evidence, not proof, though it may be good circumstantial evidence that something was launched. It is not proof that the spiral formed by a rocket sputtering in a perfect spiral for about a whole minute, without its emissions dissipating as all other rocket failures have.

I'm not saying this thing spontaneously formed there, or that it's a "UFO." All I'm saying is that I do NOT believe that the spiral itself formed from a rocket sputtering in a perfect spiral for an entire minute. If you could actually identify parts of the rocket inside the spiral, or something like that, THEN you could say you have proof that the spiral is being formed by a sputtering rocket releasing its gases. It doesn't even have to be limited to that, it can be any real form of proof really.

Especially when you are dealing with cutting edge military technology, potentially, if you really want to learn something about this, you should not settle so easily for hasty conclusions. As far as I know, they could have sent something up just to initiate what you see there, which I still have no idea what that is. Who are you to know any better?



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join