Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

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

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluebelle
 


Look 2 posts up from yours darlin' (David Sereda Theory)

As crazy as it seems I believe it to be a quantum physics experiment to alter, use, manipulate gravity....

I'm sure it is a rocket/projectile of somesort, just not the kind they want us to think it is



[edit on 18-12-2009 by FORMe2p00p0n]




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
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:

I know not everyone here speaks english natively, but just be aware that I may not fully understand everything you're trying to imply. The Bulava missile has been tested many times, and it has failed half the time or more that it's been launched. Errors have plagued that program from the beginning.


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

They didn't, nor did I say they did. Please realize that it is possible to see a missile launch from many, many miles around far beyond the place where the vehicle is actually "over." I tested it myself in simulation and found that a missile launch from the white sea towards Kamchatka peninsula where many other bulava tests have occured would put the rocket 5.8 degrees over the mountains in Skjervoy at second stage cutoff/third stage ignition (where the failure was said to occur) as seen by an observer on the ground there. The actual height in the Skjervoy photo was 5.6 degrees over the mountain (calculated by knowing exactly where the photo was taken on a pier there in town, how far away those mountains were, and how high they were according to google earth: i319.photobucket.com... ), in close agreement with my simulation.
Simulated flight using known specs for the Bulava rocket showing location over mountain at 2nd stage cutoff:
i319.photobucket.com...
Actual image:
www.universetoday.com...


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.

You seem quite happy to put all these claims in my mouth that do not belong there. I never claimed it flew over any NATO country at all. My test was done using a nominal trajectory toward Kamchatka. It never went over any NATO country. Had the third stage finished its job it would have looked roughly like this (I flew it a second time quicker and dirtier just to give an idea of the completed trajectory):
i319.photobucket.com...


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

It went into the arctic circle north of their own country, no one is going to give a damn.


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

I'm not claiming that, you are.


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

I'm trying to tell you that it didn't need to fly over NATO to be seen from the ground.


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

Then why did my simulated missile launched from the claimed location to the claimed target show up in precisely the same locaton in the sky as the spiral?


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!

My advise to you is not to pretend to know what my theory is before asking me. Assuming you know what words to put in my mouth is neither polite nor wise.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FORMe2p00p0n
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 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....


I'm not 100% sure about it in this case but aesthetically any dark area surrounded by a bright area will appear much darker due to the way we perceive darkness and light (see here for a potent example).

What I'd love to do is get hold of a source video of the end of the spiral and produce some uncompressed screengrabs. That would allow me to use something like the colour sampling tool in Photoshop to get the RGB values and establish just how black it actually is. I strongly suspect it won't be as black as the surrounding sky, indicating its nothing more than the aesthetic contrast.

Recompressed videos via web sites are no good because they've been reencoded in lossy ways that take into account our perception, it could be that not even source video is enough because it could be the original compression knocked out the detail because of MPEG or such encoding. But I'm still interested. Still very sure it's a missile though
, this is just discussion.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
For the Spiral to be over Russian soil and seen all the way in western Norway, Trøndelag more precisely is a bit far fetched. Lets say it is so but then wouldnt the same spiral been visible in other cities throughout the Scandinavian peninsula like Stockholm, Oslo, even Helsinki and cities in Russia like St.Petersburg, and in Estonia and Latvia? I don't see any reports that this Spiral was visible in any other city/town in that general area! Keep in mind that all those towns and cities I mentioned in Scandinavia are closer to the Russian border than than Trøndelag Norway. Also the Russian cities and towns should have seen it too! I call bogus.... !

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Cydonia2012]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cydonia2012
For the Spiral to be over Russian soil and seen all the way in western Norway, Trøndelag more precisely is a bit far fetched. Lets say it is so but then wouldnt the same spiral been visible in other cities throughout the Scandinavian peninsula like Stockholm, Oslo, even Helsinki and cities in Russia like St.Petersburg, and in Estonia and Latvia? I don't see any reports that this Spiral was visible in any other city/town in that general area! Keep in mind that all those towns and cities I mentioned in Scandinavia are closer to the Russian border than than Trøndelag Norway. Also the Russian cities and towns should have seen it too! I call bogus.... !

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Cydonia2012]

Noper, its possible. The Space Shuttle launch can be seen from Martha's Vineyard. Vaguely, but it can be seen



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TallWhites

Noper, its possible. The Space Shuttle launch can be seen from Martha's Vineyard. Vaguely, but it can be seen



Yep and i bet every place in between ?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Cydonia2012
 

Have you seen the infrared satellite photos? Most of Scandinavia and northern Russia was covered with clouds and fog. The coastal areas of northern Norway, from where the sitings came, were clear.



[edit on 12/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I recently found this clip which i though was interesting and a good part of the argument against it being a rocket.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Ah geez, not this HAARP bull# again



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
It looks very similar to the several previous videos of spiraling rockets/missiles that have been the subjects of previous threads.

The visual differences can be accounted for via the poor contrast resolution in the poor quality videos of this event.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
The visual differences can be accounted for via the poor contrast resolution in the poor quality videos of this event.


That must be a damned big rug you are sweeping all the differences under.

I have never seen another rocket "fail" and spiral like that. Or even function properly, for that matter. I understand that they spiral, but the gases they release don't look ANYTHING like that.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I understand that they spiral, but the gases they release don't look ANYTHING like that.

The gases look pretty much like gas to me. The only huge difference I can see between previous incidents and this one is the sun illumination of the gases as opposed to only local illumination from the rocket itself. It has to be night on the ground to see the gases, and usually that means the sun is too far below the horizon to illuminate the gas, but in this case the rocket and its exhaust had line of sight to the sun, revealing the full extent of the gas as opposed to just a small section of it near the rocket.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Post a video of a rocket failing and spiraling around.

You will notice that the gas that comes out of it rapidly expands, and does not have a smooth appearance to it at all, because it is trying to expand in all directions at once.

This is because it's a gas that's of higher temperature than the surrounding atmosphere, therefore it tries to reach an equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere by expanding outwards into it. The forces related to this will be much more pronounced than any centrifugal motion any such gases could be asserted to have.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Post a video of a rocket failing and spiraling around.

You will notice that the gas that comes out of it rapidly expands, and does not have a smooth appearance to it at all, because it is trying to expand in all directions at once.

This is because it's a gas that's of higher temperature than the surrounding atmosphere, therefore it tries to reach an equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere by expanding outwards into it.

This rocket was not in an atmosphere when it failed, there's no temperature around it at all because there's no atmosphere to speak of at ~160km altitude and rising (the altitude the rocket was at at the moment of third stage ignition). At lower altitudes, sure it will try to reach equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere, but that does not apply in this case.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
This rocket was not in an atmosphere when it failed, there's no temperature around it at all because there's no atmosphere to speak of at ~160km altitude and rising (the altitude the rocket was at at the moment of third stage ignition).


That's total bull man. You can measure temperature in space.

What you MEAN to say is that the atmosphere is less dense where the rocket exploded. Which is even more reason for those gases to expand.

Even if it were in the complete vacuum of space, yes, it would still expand. That's why astronauts can't open their suits or they'll be "sucked" out.

There is no avoiding it, this is real physics. I am an engineering student, so I would love to see you back up what you say with sources.

The only place it would NOT expand would be somewhere like 10 miles under the ocean where there is immense compression from the weight of so much water. The less dense you go, the more it is going to expand when released.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Definitely not a rocket in my opinion. Interestingly enough, I found This blog article about a similar event seen in China. However, since I do not speak Mandarin, I cannot tell if they are discussing the same phenoma seen in Norway or if this is one of their own.

Anyway, I was thinking about this and recall a message from our old friend, Dark Kn1ght. I am beginning to wonder if these sightings are the holographic projects that he said would be coming. What do you guys think?




Yes, i agree, it sounds a lot like what Dark Kn1ght was talking about.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's total bull man. You can measure temperature in space.

Space has no temperature, only matter can have temperature. Matter in space has a temperature dictated by the thermal properties of that particular material.


What you MEAN to say is that the atmosphere is less dense where the rocket exploded.

The atmosphere is negligible as to be ignored where the failure occurred, which itself does not appear to be an explosion per se. At the altitude and speed the rocket was traveling the dynamic atmospheric pressure was down in the 10^-5 atm range or lower, in other words, it was meaningless.


Which is even more reason for those gases to expand.

It more of a reason for each particle to follow a straight line from the initial force imparted to it to cause it to leave the rocket, in other words, no billowing. The velocity will be that of the exhaust velocity, 4km/sec or thereabouts, which is why the spiral formed so rapidly and dispersed just as rapidly.


Even if it were in the complete vacuum of space, yes, it would still expand. That's why astronauts can't open their suits or they'll be "sucked" out.

The pressure of the gasses in the suit itself provides the force for the gas to expand. The vacuum literally does nothing, the gas does all the work.


There is no avoiding it, this is real physics. I am an engineering student, so I would love to see you back up what you say with sources.

If you're an engineering student you should know that the thermal properties of whatever you're measuring combined with the lighting conditions will determine the temperature of an object in a vacuum, the vacuum itself has no temperature, and two different objects sitting in the same vacuum can and will assume very different temperatures. If you don't believe me then by all means try it yourself. If you're a student in college you should have fairly easy access to a vacuum flask and thermometers of various types.


The only place it would NOT expand

I'm sorry, where did I say it would not "expand"? It's not going to billow or be disrupted by surrounding gasses, nor will it form equilibrium with surrounding gasses since there are none to speak of.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If you search on ATS you'll find the previous threads I mentioned, including videos & discussion.

If you search on Youtube you'll also be able to see many of the videos, sans the discussion.

I won't respond in more detail because ngchunter has covered everything very nicely.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
It would be cool to think it was a UFO

Unfortunaltely is was a Clunky Russian Missile misfire...Cant get that junk second stage Topol to work right

....you can see the contrail in the video to the right of screen

Why the hell would Aliens want to open up a space portal over Norway of all places???

Sorry to ruin all the fun...Darn



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kecochra
It would be cool to think it was a UFO

Unfortunaltely is was a Clunky Russian Missile misfire...Cant get that junk second stage Topol to work right

....you can see the contrail in the video to the right of screen

Why the hell would Aliens want to open up a space portal over Norway of all places???

Sorry to ruin all the fun...Darn


I'm not so sure. I'm rather surprised that the Russians have come clean so quickly. I'd have thought they'd have ducked and weaved a bit more, seeing as they were supposedly firing missiles in the vicinity of Norway! Remember the "Whiskey on the rocks" incident? Beware of cover-stories that are too eagerly told!





new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join