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

page: 22
67
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


You've got it bass ackwards.

You're insisting it's anomalous (i.e., guilty of violating the current paradigms).

YOU have the burden of proof to show beyond reasonable doubt that NO prosaic explanation is adequate.

Otherwise, the current paradigms go free, are innocent of being falsified, and stay in force.

Is the rest of your wortd view equally upside down?




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Your attempt to put the burden of proof on me, when I freely admit I have no idea what in the hell it is, is laughable and ridiculous.

When you are interested in providing proof of your own claims, I will still be here waiting.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Listen, there's more that lies in any of these spiral threads... just look for yourself.

The effect was quite dramatic I admit, but it was the twilight effect (GOOGLE it) of the exhaust plume from the rocket as it corkscrewed thru the morning sky that made it so...it just so happened that those in the area of Tromso Norway were in the right position to see it as the dawning sunlight hit the plume from their angle... but the motion of the rocket was just like all the rest of them-- a spiral. It's like viewing a rainbow- you have to be in just the right position as the droplets hit the sun to see the effect...

read through the threads and see for yourself.... you might learn something, or not, and you can continue to deny what it actually was.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I'm slowly changing my mind and accepting the missile story



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
To all the "It is a damn rocket" men. Please explain a few observations that trouble me. I don't really understand what I'm seeing, so I'm still very open minded to all the theories.

Staging: I read that this was a solid rocket, but was later told that the third and final (which is supposed to be the failed stage) stage was a liquid fuel propelled stage. Are we assuming that the blue twist part was stage 2?, stage 3?, prior to stage 3?, or the failed hull falling back to earth?

Fuel Pressure and volume: How much pressure do they normaly need to use to get a flamable liquid to move from a storage tank(lets assume it's under some, but low pressure) to and out the injection nozzle(s)? This is important to how far the liquid would travel depending on how much atmoshere is present at a given altitude. As for volume, how much liquid could the third stage hold?

Altitude:How high do we think this rocket was at stage 3 failure?

Scale:How big would the outside of the spiral have to be? (in miles will be close enough for me)

I have particular trouble with the white spiral size, configuration and perfection if it was to be caused by fuel vapor.

Lets get a little more scientific, and a little less sheepish.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


In answer to your many questions, how the heck should we know?
I'll just e mail the Russian military and ask huh? I'm sure they won't mind since you are an ATS poster after all.
WHY is it incumbent on those of us that have figured out it was nothing more than a missile to explain every minute technical detail? And who know if your questions have an validity anyway. Though many of you imagine yourselves to be experts all of a sudden in this field (
), I freely admit I'm not!
But I don't need to be to see the obvious, I can add 2 and 2.
It WAS a Russian ICBM



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I am going with the rocket explaination. If it is anything like the Iranian missiles that they were showing on the news a few weeks ago, the spiral looks like it would be the lateral exhaust from the rocket they use to spin the guidance or gyro up in the nose cone portion.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TamtammyMacx
 


Makes sense to me.


It's not rocket science



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Anywho, time will tell if these types of spirals really are ICBM missiles.
If suddenly we get spiral UFO reports from countries not known to have ICBM's in their arsenal, then we'll know something is up.

Until such time I'm gonna accept the missile story



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
This is all baloney from the Star Trek wanta be considering there is video manipulation. Welcome our green friends ba ha ha. Desperately seeking an escpape from their problems.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 





Have you ever seen a spinning water sprinkler?


Was the rocket pinned to the ground in the center, giving it a solid basis against the exhaust points?

Would that spinning water sprinkler produce a perfect water spiral if it wasn't fixed to the ground?

Let's put that sprinkler on smooth surface and leave it unatached to the ground.

What do you think will happen?

Your comparison has a major flaw.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

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

I guess you've never watched a launch from a couple hundred miles away or more. I have. There's no sound when you're that far away. Even from Orlando I've never heard a peep when watching shuttle launches just an hour's drive away. Smaller rockets would be even less so.


2. DEBRIS- No reports of any being found

Are people currently scouring the waters of the arctic circle north of Russia? Cause that's where it would be. If anyone was it would be the military to recover their vehicle.


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.

The center of the spiral is offset from the true center of the total circle, it is not being viewed perfectly face-on.


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

Can you prove they were lying?


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

Conservation of angular momentum; an object rotating in space will keep rotating until something acts in a direction that will stop it. A failed rocket will be unable to stop, so it will just keep rotating at a constant rate. The thrust creating the spiral is acting perpendicular to the rotation.


6. ILLUMINATION- If it were a failed rocket...would it not explode like 90% of them? where is the ka-boom!

Solid fueled rockets don't usually just explode. They may go out of control, but even Challenger's solid boosters kept burning for quite a while after the initial failure had long disintegrated the rest of the craft.


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??

Waters of the arctic circle in the middle of nowhere.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 





Have you ever seen a spinning water sprinkler?


Was the rocket pinned to the ground in the center, giving it a solid basis against the exhaust points?

No, but unlike a water hose, a rocket is a rigid body. It will not flex the way a water hose will, which causes the vector of thrust to start increasing or decreasing the rotational velocity randomly.


Your comparison has a major flaw.

On that we agree, but for different reasons.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo515
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 spiral effect?...I don't think so.


On the grown-up thread discussing this case, people went off and dug up the IR weather satellite images of the whole area, and calculated sky brightness to the east closer to sunrise. It was clear that in this case, only an area around Tromso was not overcast or well into civil twilight.

In other cases, drawings of spirals from rocket launches going back to the 1980s were made by witnesses in other locations, including some off to the side of that particular flight path, so the spiral's plane was inclined more sharply to the line of sight.

All of this stuff is over at the main discussion thread. I'm presuming this discussion was started by people who wanted to hide from that kind of evidence. Suit yourself.

EDIT ADD: Also, they weren't standing directly in front of it. They were standing BEHIND it.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


To make a test of New intercontinental missile is a thing very very serious one and the Russians have safety procedures of higher degree and very very elevating.

Even a single little one error in these procedures can provoke the failure of a cost plan billions of dollars, ten years of searches, diplomatic or military repercussions and consequences of enormous capacity...

Then, Some rules if indeed you have the necessity to test your new SLBM (ICBM) missile. First of all, you ignite the fuse and escapes and after, if you do not want to make to burst a third atomic conflict:

You cannot make the test of a missile over an other Country.

You cannot make the test of a missile near the borders of an other Country.

You cannot make the test of a missile above a Country of the NATO.

If you lose the control of the missile you must self-destroy it within the borders of your Country.

If you lose the control of the missile you must absolutely recover wreckages (all the wreckages) within least time.

If you make the test of a missile over an other Country, this is a deliberated threat.

If you make the test over a country of the NATO, you risks an immediate act of retaliation.

THERE IS NO MISSILE....... SOMETHING ELSE BUT NOT RUSSIAN MISSILE!

A friendly advice to the supporters of the "Rocket Theory": you must hold the children far from fireworks next christmas because you have no idea what mean a test of an ICBM!



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
How come no one brings up the end of the (multiple) videos where the whole spiral dissipates within 5 second (or less). All these computer simulations show it dispersing in a typical manner, but in the videos it's there doing its thing, then from the center out it disappears... the only reasonable explanation is to compare it to a "contrail" of a plane (which 1/2 the times I see them will disappears with in a 1,000 ft or so). But this still doesn't make sense why it started to dissapear from the center and not the edges.

David Sereda explains some quantum physics which can really pertain to this phenomenon (it starts about 2:00 in the video and continues on through part 4).

David Sereda's Theory

What if the projectile spewed out material so that it could be documented measured, calculated and compaired for this theory....just a thought

Not to mention without proper forward thrust there is NO WAY any object could remain at an upward trajectory, show me any air vehicle/projectile in a "tailspin" that has can maintain current upward thrust for more the 10 seconds. You can't cause it's impossible.

Of coarse there is the launch trail that seems to be coming from a terrestrial origin, that makes the only other possible explanation that it is new technology meant to do this (spiral).... for some unknown reason. Yes that would make it a rocket, and yes that new tech could of not done exactly what they wanted it to, thus failing.... no lie there.

Oh ya and as for an explosion... supposedly its a carrier missile (carries 10 nuclear missiles as payload), the last thing the want it to do is explode... even on failure




[edit on 18-12-2009 by FORMe2p00p0n]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FORMe2p00p0n
 


Jim Oberg has:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I agree there are many aspects of this that are interesting (and somewhat scary) as a missile.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FORMe2p00p0n
How come no one brings up the end of the (multiple) videos where the whole spiral dissipates within 5 second (or less). All these computer simulations show it dispersing in a typical manner, but in the videos it's there doing its thing, then from the center out it disappears... the only reasonable explanation is to compare it to a "contrail" of a plane (which 1/2 the times I see them will disappears with in a 1,000 ft or so). But this still doesn't make sense why it started to dissapear from the center and not the edges.


It makes perfect sense. The effluent feed from the vehicle (two feeds, actually) cuts off sharply, and all of the dispersed material continued radially outwards from the vehicle, as they did for the entire sequence, expanding and fading to below sky background visibility. It's EXACTLY how a center-fed rotating sprayer would make, and then stop making, a spiral.

Think about what people are trying to say. You haven't understood it at all.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Im no expert on rockets, stargates, holograms or black holes. So I cant make any steadfast judgements either way. However, as exciting as it is thinking that something crazy is going on, the boring explanation is usually the right one.

All this 'no it isnt a rocket', 'yes it is' crap is getting boring. Im assuming the people who are so insistent that this isnt a rocket have done a fair amount of research to come to such a certain conclusion, so instead of endlessly arguing as to why it isnt a rocket (because really you arent getting anywhere quickly with that angle), why not give us some suggestions as to what it could be?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I do get what you are saying, but the rate of the spiral expansion seemed slow.... until the end. Only an explanation of compressed air (or some kind of unseen thrust) leaving the projectile at the end could explain that kind of (quick) dispersion from the center, outward.

Next 4th of july, someone should experiment with the rose type and/or pinwheel type fireworks... and film the result to determine whether dispersion from center can happen that fast....

[edit on 18-12-2009 by FORMe2p00p0n]





new topics




 
67
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join