It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !

page: 12
286
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:25 PM

Also, with the corrected tangent calculations the surface area of the spiral begins to shrink drastically.

If the radius was only 15km (between 3 and 4 degrees), than the surface area is only like 700 or so sq km.

MUCH BETTER. Things compute now.

LOL

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:33 PM

Phage can you explain why you used the tangent instead of the 1 degree? Why is the tangent used for the calculation? Just asking.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:37 PM

I used the tangent of 1º. I used 1º because the OP did.
The tangent of an angle is used to find the size of an object at a known (in this case assumed) distance.

[edit on 12/14/2009 by Phage]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:39 PM

Here I'll give you a link.

www.1728.com...

""When trying to describe the size of an object (especially an object in the sky), it is difficult for the average person to do this precisely. You could say that the Moon looks to be about the size of a tennis ball but that isn't very specific. Do you mean a tennis ball as seen from a foot ? 5 feet? 10 feet? 100 feet?
In order to express this properly, you would have to describe the object in terms of its angular size. As we saw in example 1, the Moon's angular size is 30 minutes of arc which is about the same size that a tennis ball appears at 24 feet.

From trigonometry we can derive a simple formula that works for small angles only. Looking at the diagram at the top of the page, we could take triangle ACD as a right triangle (which it isn't) with the 90 degree angle as CDA. Line CD is the size of the object, Line AD is the distance and CAD is the angle. We then can generate a simple angular size formula

Since this works for small angles, let us take the tangent of 1 degree which is .017455 which means that when an object's size is .017455 times its distance, it has an angular size of 1 degree. OR to put it another way: When an object's distance is 57.29 times its size, it has an angular size of 1 degree.""

Further information is contained within the link explaining angular size calculations. Also they have a nifty calculator where you can plug your own numbers in and see what you come up with.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:39 PM

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Well, just so you know, I am a professional image analyst, professional graphic artist, and also a photographer, and lighting specialist, including a scientist that studies physics, chemistry, electrical engineering, and on top of that I am a private investigator. So you picked the wrong person to try to debunk.

Well then you should know that a photo taken with 'normal' shutter speed shows significantly LESS light than is visible with the naked eye. Surely you know this, being an expert, and yet you conveniently leave that out of your argument.

That being said, what was actually visible during the event would be somewhere in between the 2 images, not either-or.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
In the above image, you would have to be a complete noob to photography to not see that the exposure time was long (slow shutter speed). You can even compare it to other known pictures with slow shutter speeds. You notice the color similarities? This is because slow shutter speeds increase "color temperature" of all lights. This make most lights look similar... very bright.

Surely you also know that color temperature and brightness have no correlation. The jist of what you are saying here is correct, but the details of it make me question your credibility as a self-proclaimed expert.

For example, as color temperature increases, images take on an increasingly BLUEish hue, as opposed to lower color temperatures, which have an orange hue. These images have a strong orange hue, which means low color temperature.

The fact is, color temperature is not affected by exposure time. A 6500K light remains 6500K regardless of exposure time.

I apologize for my condescending tone, I simply chose to adopt the same tone you had in your responses.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:49 PM

Thanks for clearing that up, Phage.

I should've seen that at a 1 degree angle, the diameter can never be bigger than the distance.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:54 PM
I have taken pictures at night and it is very difficult especially shooting something that is far away.

I have a question because I am not an expert in photography or science, so I would like some non-biased feedback please.

Is it possible that the properties of the spiral......

Would cause the pictures to look the way they do.....

and it has nothing to do with the settings on the camera

or even the camera ?

Can that be an explanation for the pictures?

EDIT:

I'm having a hard time coming to grips with that picture of the perfect rings and the blue light, being a skateboarder, most of my friends and myself included thought the picture to be photoshopped.

Now everyone on here is talking about shutter speed, and that is getting a little beyond me.

Thus, why I think the properties (chemical make up) of the spiral have something to do with the way the photos turned out.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by game over man]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:13 PM
Has anyone done research on the spiral seen in China twenty years ago? What was the given explanation for that?

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

Originally posted by Point of No Return

If the sun was lighting it, why did it fade out all of a sudden?

Makes no sense.

The reflective surface (exhaust) was blown away from the ejection site (the end of the rocket). The only thing that changed was the lack of exhaust, which caused what appears to be a 'black hole' in the center. Everything else was dissipation of the reflective surface (exhaust).

Ok, but wouldn't the sun also be shining on the remains of the rocket, wouldn't a bright spot be seen in the middle of the "black hole"?

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by game over man

Well, only insomuch that the colour of the light is due to the chemical make-up. As we've seen some of the photos are clear (faster shutter speed), and some are blurry (slower shutter speed).

Chemicals are not magic

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:21 PM
Thanks that helps alot. However, shouldn't this event then be seen in Svalbard, due north of of Tromso, or any of the other scandinavian countrys? This is what I don't get. The op proposed that maybe it was closer to Norway or from that haarp like arrray. How big would the disk be if it came only from 15-20km away(as suggested).

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:25 PM
Even though this picture may have been taken with long exposure, the rocket must still have traveled the path of the outer rings in the picture.

Assuming that it started spiraling in the third stage, above 500 km, it still looks way too big in the picture.

Or does the long exposure make it bigger? I still can't see how it would.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by game over man

Well, only insomuch that the colour of the light is due to the chemical make-up. As we've seen some of the photos are clear (faster shutter speed), and some are blurry (slower shutter speed).

Chemicals are not magic

A slight inaccuracy.

Shutter speed does not affect the 'bluriness' of a photo. Only depth of field and motion affect bluriness (and of course, f-stop, but that is because it affects the depth of field)

The reason people use long exposure settings (read: slower shutter speed) at night is because leaving the shutter open for a longer period of time allows more light to enter the camera. If the object being photographed moves, or if the camera moves, while the shutter is open, streaking will occur (bluriness).

As a said, a slight inaccuracy, but I wanted to clear it up so others don't use the same logic.

One further point: I can take a photo with a very fast shutter speed that is very blurry, just as I can take a photo with a very slow shutter speed that is crystal clear.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by Point of No Return

The exposure time wouldn't but a telephoto lens would.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:30 PM

But the rest of the pic is in proportion.

It's not made with a telelens, imo.

edit: just look at the pic, it's definately not made with a telelens.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Point of No Return]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:36 PM

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by game over man

Well, only insomuch that the colour of the light is due to the chemical make-up. As we've seen some of the photos are clear (faster shutter speed), and some are blurry (slower shutter speed).

Chemicals are not magic

Glad we ruled out that chemicals are not magic

Can someone link up the clear pictures of the spiral and the blue light?

How fast are the rings moving? Has this been calculated? Now go back to your shutter speed.....

The video shows the rings, honestly it looks more like this than a failed rocket:

EXAMPLE

Strickingly similar, also note that in the videos, the blue light almost resembles a projection, like a projector, projecting on to a screen. Some videos show the blue light encompassing around the spiral, making more of an argument that the blue light is projecting the spiral.

The pictures on the otherhand makes it look like the blue light is going straight to the center of the spiral.

I think further aguments should link pictures and video, instead of just talking off the top of your head, recalling the event by memory, which seems odd, especially the accounts on here who claim to be experts.

The best evidence is the video footage, the photos, and the eye witness accounts

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:37 PM
It was a failed Russian missile test nothing more nothing less.

The fact that the OP spent time using Google Earth(which he just loves) and doing mathematical calculations that most of those posting here have no idea about, and some grainy pictures off the web,prove nothing.

At least he is not trying to convince people that mud holes in the Nevada desert are crashed UFO's.

Nobody seems to comprehend the time of year it is above the arctic circle where this all took place.It is colder than heck up there.

The atmosphere is weird there.I lived in Alaska and during this time of the year you do see things differently.High altitude ice crystals makes for some amazing and weird views.

Also they wouldn't be aiming the rocket toward where the target is at time of launch but where it will be when the rocket got there.

You have to adjust for the rotation of the earth and the travel time of the rocket.

You can see rocket launches from Vandenburg AFB all over the west coast.

If you didn't know better you would think we were attacking Bolivia by the direction they were headed.

But with the rotation of the earth they hit Johnson atoll every time.

They have been reported to be seen as far away as Albuquerque N.M.

Depends on atmospheric conditions.

All these stars and flags to the OP's post do not make him credible only consistent in his illogical assumptions and his love of Google Earth.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Even though this picture may have been taken with long exposure, the rocket must still have traveled the path of the outer rings in the picture.

You are right about the image being a longer exposure, I am pretty sure the photographer admitted to that, even then, you can see it clearly if you are skilled enough to notice.

HOWEVER, you are extremely incorrect saying the missile must have traveled the path of the outer rings.... You are ignoring basic physics.

The outer ring expanded to that size due to centrifugal force. When you spin something there is an outward force away from the center of rotation. When the missile was spinning and expelling those gases, the centrifugal force from the spin shot the gases away from the center. So each rotation made a small ring, and the ring slowly expanded bigger and bigger until it was many times larger than its original rotation.

This is why at the end, when the missile is self destructed, there is a dark circle that appears to get bigger and bigger. The centrifugal forces shot the white gases out and they are still moving away from the center even after the missile is gone. That then creates a huge circular area with no white gases in the center (dark circle), which is just an empty area of sky.

It is really really easy to understand... and there is no reason to think it is anything else.

In the videos you can clearly see the gases are following laws of physics and inertia, and there is NOTHING abnormal about the white spiral. It's just a bunch of particles that have been flung away from the center caused by the spinning. To think it is anything but that is to ignore basic physics that are visible in the video.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by game over man

I'll see your photo of a galaxy and raise you this video simulation of a rocket venting its fuel. I think you'll find the video not only looks identical to the missile event, but it even moves the same way.

You can find spirals frequently in nature. And the video I posted shows how a failed missile launch can end up with one.

Unless someone can show how the phenomenon can't be a failed missile launch, this is all pointless, as we have an explanation that is rational, and so far no one has been able to contradict it with a sane argument.

Of course it was a failed rocket. There is no rational reason to believe otherwise.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:46 PM

I think you'll find the video not only looks identical to the missile event, but it even moves the same way.

Ya think?

It's a fracking sim of the event, made after the event,

Off course it looks the same.

top topics

286