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

page: 14
286
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Here's a picture I find interesting. It's of normal seperation of stages.
Take a look.Multistage seperation

Looks like a cone coming from the seperating stage doesn't it? Now what could that look like if it were traveling directly away from your vantage point. Remember this is a normal flight. Now what could it look like if it were spinning and leaking massive amounts of fuel?




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


One of the main reasons I posted all of those pics was for that very reason. They aren't all long shutter speeds so more in depth analysis can be done if the math wizard that originally posted cares to put the math to them. More data is always welcome I assume. Of course when one assumes you know what that means. lol



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
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"?


I wouldn't say a 'bight spot' because I am not sure of the reflective nature of the surface of a missile, but I will concede that it would reflect somewhat.. but your not insinuating that the rocket stayed floating in the air after all of it's propellant was spent.. are you?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
I asked this, cause other posters(Fenrir, HankMCCoy) were saying that the dissapation of gasses, caused the appearance of the "black hole", and the outward emanating light.

Now you say these gasses didn't dissapate. Who to believe?


Uh what? I didn't say the gases didn't dissipate.

dictionary.reference.com...


1. to scatter in various directions; disperse; dispel.


I clearly said the gases were ejected (scattered) from the the center outward (dispersed) because of centrifugal forces. The gases were set in motion radially, and each particle had it's own trajectory (direction).

How on Earth did you come to the conclusion that I said the gases didn't dissipate?

It's REALLY easy to understand man... the gases were ejected from the the center outward. When the ejection of gases stopped, the gases previously ejected were still moving outward away from the center. The "black hole" is created by the absence of the gases. The "black hole" got bigger because the gases were moving away from the center, and no other gases were being ejected from the center.

It's basic physics.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

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



Again, looks way too big.

Like this one?


Or this one?


How about this?


It depends on the lens. It has been described as being 2 or 3 times the size of a full moon.

[edit on 12/14/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 





How on Earth did you come to the conclusion that I said the gases didn't dissipate?


Well, because you said the shape stayed the same, whereas those other posters claimed they just dissapated to the point they didn't reflect sunlight anymore.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Here is an interseting picture of normal rocket stage seperation.
Take a look!Normal seperation

now if you were diectly behind, vehicle moving directly away from you, and the missle was leaking massive fuel while spinning, what could that cone shape exhaust trail look like?

[edit on 14-12-2009 by OldDragger]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 





I wouldn't say a 'bight spot' because I am not sure of the reflective nature of the surface of a missile, but I will concede that it would reflect somewhat


And did we see it reflect?

No.




but your not insinuating that the rocket stayed floating in the air after all of it's propellant was spent.. are you?


At that point it wasn't in the air. And even falling it would reflect sunlight until a certain height.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Something to consider- read and learn

The Twilight Phenomena :

These twilight phenomena or twilight effects occur when the unburned fuel particles in the rocket trail and water condense, freeze and then expand in the thinner upper atmosphere. Because rocket trails extend high into the stratosphere and mesosphere, they catch high altitude sunlight long after the sun has set on the ground. The small exhaust particles diffract sunlight and produce pink, blue, green and orange colours, making the twilight phenomenon all the more spectacular.


Twilight phenomena are quite rare because they require a rocket launch timed around sunrise or sunset and clear skies. Plus, the exhaust particles must have similar sizes and be at least several micron across to produce this vivid iridescence.
High altitude winds deform, twist and carry the rocket trails over long distances. Often visible even hundreds of miles away from the rocket launch, they catch many a viewer unaware. In fact, they are often mistaken for a failed rocket launch or even an unidentified flying object.




or a wormhole, or some sort of HAARP experiment

[edit on 14-12-2009 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


As opposed to the backgrounds and buildings, yes it still does Phage, the zoom or lens on those pics doesn't change the proportions.

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



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 





now if you were diectly behind, vehicle moving directly away from you, and the missle was leaking massive fuel while spinning, what could that cone shape look like?


Like a much smaller, non-perfect, chaotic spiral type thingy.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Here's a nice pic!

Contrail

I think this illustrates the Twighlight Effect nicely.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


That one's perty..



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Smaller? No, it would be much larger due to leaking fuel!
And really, how could you know how "perfect' it would be?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 

A zoom lens does not "change proportions" of things in the same plane and it does affect distant objects more than closer objects.



blog.washingtonpost.com...





[edit on 12/14/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Well, because you said the shape stayed the same, whereas those other posters claimed they just dissapated to the point they didn't reflect sunlight anymore.


Huh? You are so confused that I can't even find the correct words to reply to your comment.

I don't understand why you are having trouble understanding what I am saying.

I said the shape stayed the same (kind of), but the size of the shape didn't, the size expanded and it got larger, that means the gases were dissipating from the center.

The reason the entire spiral disappeared shortly after the event is because the gases dissipated to the point where they were not reflecting enough sunlight to be seen at that distance. The rays of light from each particle became too small to travel through all the atmosphere without being refracted by the turbulences of air.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Ok. Now that I've bothered to check his numbers (I admit I wasn't paying attention the first time, I was sloppy), I do dispute his calculations.

The OP says that, at 500km a 1º angle yields a size of 778 km.

The tangent of 1º is .0175.
www.science-projects.com...

.0175 x 500km = 8.75km

Oopsy.



Yes, Phage you're absolutely right in that there was an error in my calculations to which I readily own up to and correct below ... but having said that, your own calculation at 500kms is not correct either ... Ooopsy




Source: www.wolframalpha.com...


Instead of calculating the radius of the spiral and then doubling that value to obtain the diameter, I inadvertently tried to calculate the diameter directly which obviously was not the way to go ... smack on the wrist for me


So now, to calculate the radius, I use a value of 0.5 degree (1 degree for the diameter). The 1 degree comes into play when we double the radius to obtain the diameter of the spiral ... so the use of 1 degree is still a reasonable base assumption value.

Having realised my error in using a full degree instead of half degree, I have now recalculated the table of altitudes/diameter and have also added an additional column that shows the resulting surface area of the spiral.

Despite the original error, the end result really doesn't change and the recalculated values once more REAFFIRM my conclusion that PHYSICALLY, the spiral has to be at an altitude less than 5kms ... otherwise the diameter and area are insane values !!



So finally, if the spiral was created at an altitude of 100's of kms or higher, it should have been plainly visible over a huge geographical region ... not just Norway.
Also at those sorts of altitudes, the entire spiral would have been so bright due to reflection of sunlight that it would have been incredibly conspicuous !

Once again, the failed missile excuse fails MISERABLY !



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


Smaller as opposed to our spiral.

How do you know it would make a perfect spiral?

A random fuel leak with less and less pressure behind it won't make a unform spiral imo.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by davesidious
 


I agree

...but if you post a bunch of images and numbers and calculations that are not even close to being accurate but they look fancy, you get 200+ flags and many members who will only agree with you because you sound smart and hold a similar belief.

Ive learned that you don't even have to be correct in order to get 200+ flags, you just have to look correct and agree with the conspiracy and not the truth.


The table with recalculated values has now been posted - go take a look ... same conclusion reaffirmed by the new figures .... that the missile excuse is a crock of poo !



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


The reason you don't understand me is becuase your statements are the opposite of the statements of other members, and I'm trying to portray that one of you must be wrong, but jeah, it's a bit confusing.

My bad.



new topics

top topics



 
286
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join