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: 9
67
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sh1fty
 


I have a slight problem with the CGI video and it's explanation. The exhaust trail and the spiral doesn't match up.

The exhaust trail extends down from the spiral...and some pictures show it to have a bit of a spiral to it as well. However the main spiral doesn't extend down with the exhaust and isn't conical in shape as it should be.

If we follow the video explanation of this event the main spiral should be conical and the cone should extend down around the exhaust....which it doesn't.

In fact the spiral appears to be fairly flat and not conical in shape while the exhaust is elongated away from the spiral, which in it's self....one would think....would disprove this theory.

Either that or the missile defied the laws of gravity and stops moving forward, then sits in one place in the sky and spins for a while not moving up, down, forward or backward creating a nice flat spiral shape.

Anybody care to explain?

[edit on 13-12-2009 by 750Aero]




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ahh yes okay so why then does the spiral not look like this, as you would typically expect?

img46.imageshack.us...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MacATK18
 

1) Because the angle was more oblique than that.
2) Because the lifetime of the spiral was brief.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
With all the talk about HARP site being nearby I thought it could be some sort of secret test going on.

After reading about it I don't think it is anything more than a freak event,why the Russians didn't blow the rocket who knows perhaps they thought it no danger and left it to burn out.

As for Aliens wormholes or the Hadron come on really?do people REALLY believe this or just playing along.

I wish it was it would be great



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DraconianKing

Originally posted by Copernicus

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...



Did you even bother watching the video? Stuff coming out of the side and back. The stuff coming out of the side makes the large white spiral and the stuff coming out the back makes the smaller blue spiral "tail".


First, allow me to say this is the most convincing argument I've seen for the rocket explanation. On top of that, I'm not willing to say it wasn't a failed rocket test. Just at this point, I'm not willing to discount any argument (outside of what I consider to be blatant silliness).

My problem with this video "simulation" though is that it seems to be more of a representation fit to the photographic evidence. There's two inherent problems with the video--that I can see, and maybe they aren't problems at all, but the video doesn't adequately cover them either, as is hard to do with a mere 50 seconds.

1) The trajectory is assumed to be a perfectly straight line, or, given the scale appears to be a straight line. If the simulation does indeed make the assumption that the trajectory was perfectly (or nearly) straight, then the simulation is made to fit the event and possibly not wholly accurate.

2) Without further information on how the simulation was run, it could be far to simplistic. This correlates back to the trajectory assumption. The "rocket" used in the simulation/representation is a simple cube. This presents problems on both scale and proportions if the simulation is anything more than a video representation. Different proportions, weights, payloads, distributions--all these things could have an effect.

Now don't take all that to even make a stab at what I might believe about the spiral effect, just take it to say that the video, also, is not an end-all-be-all explanation in my mind. Though it is compelling in its representation of the event.

Edit to add: the term used in the video is to imagine spiraling "space junk". If the assumption in the simulation is space junk then obvious questions, if the event was inside our atmosphere, become what of gravity, friction, etc.

I'm no scientist by any stretch, these are just problems that seemed to poke out for me that I'd like to see answered.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Fiscal]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


But the spiral "walked across the sky"?
So your saying it did so briefly? Your link says it took at least 1 minute.
So according to your source the spiral was present for the duration of that minute while it moved across the sky... Contrails can last for hundreds of miles yet the spiral ejecta dissipated that quickly yet it is dense and fairly opaque towards the center.. I don't see it..



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MacATK18
 




Because he TOLD YOU....
1) Because the angle was more oblique than that.

That explain BOTH spirals MAN! Dont you get it?

Forget about the multiple angles people shot the spirals, That's OLD School.
Also faulty rockets travel fast..... this one was going 2mph in the air.
(I run faster but who cares)
The Angle and Speed of the Rocket make that happen.

Give it up. Just sit back, Relax and wait for the next 1.
Lets see how they explain that one.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Just thought I'd share this....it's Dan Akroyd pitching his UFO doc on Anderson Cooper a while back; but at the 3:05 mark, he describes something that he experienced (apparently with many others) that involved seeing a red spiral in the sky....???




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
woops, that didn't work. Here's the link:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MacATK18
 

Contrails are within the atmosphere and "feed" off of moisture in the air.
The spiral occurred outside of the atmosphere.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by magestyk7
Forget about the multiple angles people shot the spirals, That's OLD School.


The angles don't play a role at such distances. You won't get a notably different picture from an object that's 700+km away from you when the spots that you take the pictures from are separated by only a few meters or even km's.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by magestyk7
 


Lol

Yep and I can't believe someone actually got me to retract the statement that a failing rocket is not stable.. LOL I retract my retraction of that statement. A FAILING ROCKET IS MOST CERTAINLY UNSTABLE OR IT WOULDN'T BE FAILING IN THE FIRST PLACE!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MacATK18
 

An you know the failure mode of this test...how?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
has anyone did at least a cursory analysis of the 'spirals' in the video ??

for instance how many are observable?
how many spirals in what ammount of time?
estimate the speed of ascent of the rocket!
just which way are the spirals oriented?

(most shuttle launches i've seen on TV, show the Shuttle on a slow right-to-left spin ~ which is counter clockwise from behind & below the trajectory)

now if someone were to post these observations - then some headway would be made. as we would have some measured evidence to compare events to... instead of confusing belief based statements.


just a suggestion.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I'll answer you in MY words.. I've barely followed these Norway threads because there is no mystery or ancient history link.

I enjoy the artistry of your avatar btw.


Originally posted by Griffo515
1. SOUND-
2. DEBRIS
3. POSITION
4. VALIDITY
5. PRECISION
6. ILLUMINATION


1:sound - the position is a far distance away. Just the fact you can see the ending of the launch in the outer atmosphere puts it far enough away for it not to be heard.

ALSO, from what I understand, this was launched from sea so the initial burst from the water was probably only heard on the sea shore and tops of mountains. Notice most of the pics you see can't even see the smoke trail left in the lower atmosphere. Once a rocket is "going" it's not as loud as the beginning.

2: it's over the friggin sea as mentioned time and time again.. ask the whales where the debris is

3: Once again.. BECAUSE OF THE SEA.. how many people are in a designated no travel zone because of rocket launches in the middle of the sea? I know you've seen the NAVTEX links. There are a few photos taken from the shoreline that CLEARLY show the smoke from the rocket at a lower altitude. No one wants to focus on those though

4: Validity: Yes you can trust them.(sometimes that is) Especially since the failed launches from before, the navtex messages and the uncanny resemblance to other failed launches . If you believe NOTHING then you're doomed to be in perpetual ignorance

5: How is it precise? the arms on the spiral are UNEVEN. One is fat, one is thin. Also they are NOT opposite one another but in a V pattern like something on the SIDE of the rocket BURST causing it to do spirals instead of going straight. The blue fuel trail is in an ARC leading to the SMOKE at sea-level. Time lapse photography is fooling you

6: Why would it explode? they aren't testing explosions, they are testing the RANGE of carry FOR an explosion. The Russians most likely test ACTUAL explosions underground. If they were to explode something in air, then you would have an international incident instead of the international community making jokes at how bad they suck form making long range rockets. The black hole is from the lack of fuel being burned. The optical illusion of dark next to light makes it look as though it's spreading but the distance of the spiral combined with a slower than you think loss of burn is fooling you to think it's the ancient gods warping into Norway

Questions for YOU:

1: Why is the trail from the sea to the final spiral in an arc that mimics traditional rocket trajectory?

2: why is there a large amount of rocket looking exhaust near the bottom


3: why do the NAVTEX announcements coincide with the event

4: If sacred geometry is so sacred, why isn't it in the spiral? meaning the arms are in a V shape, not like the other ancient spirals or crop circles

5: if this were a link to ancient history spirals, why does the end of the event coincide with the timing of a burned out rocket If we were getting an ancient doorway opening, why over the same sea as the Russians and it only last the amount of time it takes for a rocket to fail?

b


[edit on 13-12-2009 by Bspiracy]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Katie
 


Ya I've also read about that too. And I wouldn't be surprised to find out thats what it is, because Tesla's stuff was absolutely amazing



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

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...



If you watch the video it explains why the Norway light has a blue light that appears as its tail perfectly clear. Sometimes you guys go a little to far to prove something is what it isn't.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 


This is direct from CNN site


The Russian Defense Ministry has confirmed the Russian Navy launched a Bulava ballistic missile on the same day, but has declined to make any connection with the lights seen over Norway.



So that means The Defense Ministry is saying that THEIR failed missile is not related to the lights that happened in the sky.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Is it just me, or is it threads like this that let you know the shear amount of ignorance we are surrounded by.

Guys, sorry to rain on your fantasy. It was a failed rocket launch. To those that refuse to think so because of their treatment of Ufology and the belief in conspiracies as a religion, there is nothing anyone can say or do to shake your ignorant faith...sorry to say that.

I mean, come one.....on question from the OP was "Why was there no sound" SERIOUSLY??? With that level of thinking and general life experience, I imagine that the OP and the tons of others that support him/her see "UFO's" and "Conspiracies" everywhere they look.

I know the point of this forum is to discuss some pretty "out there" things. But the point of this forum is to also illuminate the ignorance that permeates this subject so we can move on to evidence that does not have a probable earthly explanation.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacATK18
reply to post by Phage
 


Ahh yes okay so why then does the spiral not look like this, as you would typically expect?

img46.imageshack.us...


Why should any numerate person 'expect' that? Do the math.

Maybe because THAT view is from a large off-angle to the flight path, and the view from Norway was practically right up the skirt of the plume. Can we establish that geographical fact?

Also, because THAT view shows spewed material STOPPING dead as it leaves the object, and being left behind -- but in space, something separating sideways from a space object would fly along WITH it, at the original speed.

If the object is continuing to accelerate, then some lag of the outer layers might be noticeable, BUT since the spiral material remains visible for only 10 seconds at most -- it is being continuously refreshed from the center -- then the positional gain from a rocket accelerating at, say, 4 G (40 m/sec/sec), in ten seconds would be only S = 0.5 x 40 x 10^2

or about 2 km -- that, at a range from ground observer of more than 1000 km, would be visually undetectable, don't you agree.

Do the math yourself. Does this answer make sense?



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join