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: 6
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacATK18
reply to post by DGFenrir
 


Apparently your graps of math sucks too..
priceless = price approaching infinity
100 x priceless is the same as 100 x infinity and 100 x infinity = infinity so 100 x priceless = priceless.

I have just mathematically proved that your post was entirely meaningless.




Multiplying someones opinion with a number 2 means "I second that". I replaced the usual number with 100 to express my opinion that many other members would agree too.




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
So what have we proven here? We have proven that the photos YOU have provided are NOT from CNN. We have not proven ANYTHING about the pictures that they DID publish.

.. At least TRY to form a convincing strawman..


We have proven that you believe the pictures on CNN are from a rocket, and that I dont agree with you or CNN for reasons mentioned earlier in the thread.


Why did that need to be proven? I flat out CONCEDED that I think the pictures on CNN are of a rocket, as I am the one that posted the link.


Ok, let me use the same argument as you are. You said:


We have proven that the photos YOU have provided are NOT from CNN.


So let me respond with:

Why did that need to be proven? I flat out CONCEDED that I think the pictures on CNN are NOT of a rocket.


[edit on 13-12-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by fatdeeman
 


100x priceless. And these people get tons of stars for posts smelling of ignorance. This is what's wrong with ATS.


This is actually what most members say about trolls that spend their time totally off topic. !00x worthless.
Norway lights remember?


I consider this a duplicate thread which deserves no on-topic discussion. The same questions have been asked in the BIG thread. My opinion that this thread should be closed and all further discussion should be done in the first thread.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:31 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.



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

[edit on 13-12-2009 by captiva]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DGFenrir
 


Fair enough, although I wasn't aware that you spoke for so many people, you must be some kind of elected representative of the enlightened.

If you would like to argue the actual substance of first couple posts then I will engage in that discussion but enough with the off-topic "your stupid cause I say so" nonsense. If I'm wrong, how about you tell me why and we can engage in debate about specific points?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sh1fty
Why have none of you watched this video? Instead you'd rather skim over it and scramble to attack each other. If you're both posting on ATS that means one thing - WERE ON THE SAME SIDE!!

Before you continue arguing, PLEASE watch this video! It's only 50 seconds long, you can handle it ATS.



[edit on 13-12-2009 by sh1fty]


So how come the norway lights have a tail?

media.miamiherald.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus
Ok, let me use the same argument as you are. You said:


We have proven that the photos YOU have provided are NOT from CNN.


Why did that need to be proven? Why did that need to be proven? I flat out CONCEDED that I think the pictures on CNN are NOT of a rocket, as I am the one that posted the link.

Arent you getting tired of your debating tactics yet?


It needed to be proven that they were not from CNN because your entire point hinged on CNN being an unworthy source for the images of the event. Seeing as the evidence you used was not from CNN, nor were they pictures of the event, your entire argument falls to the wayside.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MacATK18
 


Okay, I change my opinion. You are not stupid. You just made a stupid claim that a failed rocket = NOT STABLE. Without knowing what exactly failed on the missile.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 


You mean the blue trail? It's probably from the missile's exhaust.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Did we really need another topic on this? The believers got thoroughly owned in the open thread, so they have to make another one to sweep that under the rug.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by Copernicus
 


You mean the blue trail? It's probably from the missile's exhaust.


It's called Cherenkov Radiation.

Also, to the smart alec who posted about where the debris is. The incident was above sea?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMSN
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


All they need to do is visit the HAARP facility during the Open House they hold every year or evn better visit the HAARP web site and email a question to one of the scientist or just read the provided data published right there


Or they could write a letter and get a copy of the Warren Report
or the report from the 911 Commission and be satisfied forever.
Better yet they could just eat grass and poop.
What about the other 364 days?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I cant believe some of you are actually buying into the whole failed missile test lunch, lets not forget something.

It was the media who said it was a failed test lunch, and also it took them the whole the day to come up with something and make a big lie out of it.


Its easy to see that they are covering up something.


And finally who can tell me where the black hole came from then? huh?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
It needed to be proven that they were not from CNN because your entire point hinged on CNN being an unworthy source for the images of the event. Seeing as the evidence you used was not from CNN, nor were they pictures of the event, your entire argument falls to the wayside.


My argument is doing just fine. This was not a rocket because it bears no resemblance to what a rocket looks like. Thats my argument.

Your argument is that CNN is credible and is telling the truth. This was a russian missile, despite the images of the norway phenomena showing no resemblance to a rocket.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by Copernicus
 


You mean the blue trail? It's probably from the missile's exhaust.


DGFenrir, are you intentionally posting misleading information?

You know that the post I responded to was not claiming it was a rocket/missile right?


[edit on 13-12-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Apparently the believers aren't knowledged enough to understand "duplicate topic". Find the answers in here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is just another duplicate thread.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
It needed to be proven that they were not from CNN because your entire point hinged on CNN being an unworthy source for the images of the event. Seeing as the evidence you used was not from CNN, nor were they pictures of the event, your entire argument falls to the wayside.


My argument is doing just fine. This was not a rocket because it bears no resemblance to what a rocket looks like. Thats my argument.

Your argument is that CNN is credible and is telling the truth. This was a russian missile, despite the images of the norway phenomena showing no resemblance to a rocket.


Fine.

If your opinion is that this is not what a failed rocket looks like, why post MORE pictures of what a failed rocket DOESN'T look like?

Here is another picture of what a failed rocket DOES NOT look like.



I cannot say that I know what every failed rocket looks like. I can only say that I know what THAT failed rocket looked like, because I saw the pictures.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by HankMcCoy]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DGFenrir
 


Best to take that up with the mods. They are usually on top of stuff like that.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DGFenrir
 


Yay a specific point!
I suppose that was a bit of a rash judgment to pass but I was only going on past experience - not a rocket scientist.

To me, it is impossible for such a precise process to not fail catastrophically.
You've got a tank of propellant sitting behind a warhead with an extremely hot plume behind it while pushing extreme g's; what could possible go wrong? And does it really matter, when the end result is all that propellant and the warhead just simply blowing up? The thing is designed to wreak massive havoc, not be colorful and beautiful. Even in the event of failure, you should see a huge explosion of the propellant and warhead and not a lovely spiral (my opinion but again, not a rocket scientist)

Can you agree that this does not take the form of a typical missile/rocket failure as you see in hundreds of videos online? Surely you concur that the spiral and blue tail are uncommon?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
Fine.

If your opinion is that this is not what a failed rocket looks like, why post MORE pictures of what a failed rocket DOESN'T look like?

Here is another picture of what a failed rocket DOES NOT look like.



I cannot say that I know what every failed rocket looks like. I can only say that I know what THAT failed rocket looked like, because I saw the pictures.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by HankMcCoy]


I could post 10000 pictures of failed rockets and you would still not change your mind, and I would be wasting my time.

Dont feel like it, and I dont care that much if you continue to believe its a rocket.





new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join