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: 22
286
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 





Any time you have a pressurised body with a hole not along the centre, it will start to rotate. Due to its rotation, the ejecta will form a spiral when viewed from beneath it, as the ejecta is moving away from the body. That is absolutely fundamental basic physics.


Yes I understand the basic physics behind it. But from the footage it seems the exhaust is still burning, making one part of the spiral, and the stuff leaking make the other part.

What I don't get is that with two different forces, it still stays on a set course that made the perfect spiral.




The rocket wasn't flying in a spiral, it was being rotated by force of the leaking propellant. Couple that with the fact that rockets have stabilisers that attempt to maintain a consistent flight-path (so if the rocket is blown by a gust of wind, its course isn't affected, which would render it useless). Some ICBMs spiral on purpose, as it like gyroscopes, it makes them more stable.


So why didn't we see an effort to come out of the spiral? You said those stabilisers were correcting flight, why did it keep spiraling on the same course?




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 





WHY is it incumbent on those of us that have figured out it was nothing more than a missile to explain every minute technical detail? And who know if your questions have an validity anyway. Though many of you imagine yourselves to be experts all of a sudden in this field ( ), I freely admit I'm not!


I don't recall asking you anything.

I asked an open question. People responded, a discussion followed.

No one is forcing you to participate.

I'm no expert either, that's why I have all these questions.

Do you have a problem with people having other views?




It WAS a Russian ICBM


Very likely. Did it behave as expected? No

Did we ever experience this exact same phenomena before? No.

Did the Russians admit the spiral was caused by their ICBM. No.

Am I allowed to get into all the little details? Yes I am.


edit to add: I see you posted the same post in the other thread. I guess it 's very important info that we all should read.

"..people, people, we all need to embrace my point of view!"

Weak.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


don't recall asking you anything.

I asked an open question. People responded, a discussion followed.

No one is forcing you to participate.

I'm no expert either, that's why I have all these questions.

Do you have a problem with people having other views?


It's a general satement to those bogged down in technical google games pretending to be experts. The "oh yeah" what about this game".
There really is NO EVIDENCE (reality based that is ) that it was anything but a missle.
Gee, taking it personally?
Go ahead if you want to. that's your problem!

[edit on 17-12-2009 by OldDragger]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
It boils down to this. The original poster made some very interesting arguments that several of us wish to discuss. Now I understand your need to be right and your desire to make sure everybody is in complete awe of your grasps of certain science. Oh my god somebody doesn't believe what I believe!!! Get em!.

Last time I checked the reason most of us are here is because we believe things others don't. Now I respect the fact you think it is a missile I really do. I don't believe that to be true. I see the points you are making and in my opinion they do not provide conclusive evidence as to what happened. You really mean to tell me you are a member of a board that revolves around conspiracy theory and you have find it odd that a few of us have a .....theory...about a conspiracy. How dare we!!!!??

I and others will continue to discuss what we believe this to be. I will await your flames regarding what I can only assume you take my post as. I'm betting the replies will be similar to "What ever plug your ears and ignore facts" or "Not listening to reason is simply ignorant" or something to that manner. Go for it you'll only prove the point I'm about to make.

I believe the missile test to be a cover. I also feel that a good cover story MAKES SENSE. If it didn't what use is it? Of course some laws of physics line up. Of course you can read it a different way. If you couldn't then the lie wouldn't serve its purpose would it!?

I agree some of your points make sense, completely and totally. However I do not feel that it disproves something else could be going on. Simply stating your point then acting like the rest of us are idiots doesn't serve any purpose but to boost your own ego. I passed physics, I even went on to college to complete advanced classes and yes I get your numbers yes you make a point, no I do not believe that is exactly what happened.

So fire away. As for me and those who believe as I do.....we shall discuss the matter as the theme of these boards suggests we should.

Flame on.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Hagbard_Celine]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Hagbard_Celine]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Now what interests me is the OP suggested connection with the research facility in Norway. Is it possible to send types of concentrated emf or other signals through the atmosphere to excite the particles to create an aurora type event similar to what we saw in the video?

Looking at other videos of Russian ICBM missiles the comparisons lead me to believe that it was not the case of a failed attempt at a military test.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

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


Hello, did you sign up specifically to talk about this subject?

A lot of people did, apparently.


Indeed I did.
But now that I'm here, I'll post elsewhere as well.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Once again, almost every single one of your points is majorly flawed....



Originally posted by tauristercus
Point Of No Return has a valid ...errr ... "point"
in that the collapse of the inner part of the spiral towards the outer edge does appear to be unusual to say the least.


There is no "collapse", that is a very horrible choice of a word.

The particles are just flying away radially from the center. When the particles stop ejecting from the missile, "emptiness" is flying away radially from the center causing a clear sky.

It's simple really.


Originally posted by tauristercus
AllisOne ... I understand what you're trying to convey but even using a "train" analogy and invoking physics unfortunately doesn't do the trick.


The simulation does the trick but everyone ignores that....


Originally posted by tauristercus
You guys made mention of the spiral having a diameter around the 5-10km range ... ok, lets assume that's a reasonable value.

Now lets take a look at the physical dimensions of the Bulava missile ... it's approx 12 metres long and has a diameter of 2 metres. This missile is composed of 3 sections (or stages) comprising 2 solid propellant stages (1st and 2nd) and a liquid based 3rd stage (for maneuverability).

Lets make a simple split and say that each stage is approx 4 metres long and 2 metres in diameter ... this gives an approx volume of liquid fuel for the 3rd stage of:
12.57 cubic metres or
12,566 litres or
3,320 gallons


Wow, you start with a major assumption. Your calculation is useless because it is not correct. There is no point to do math when you aren't starting with the correct variables.

If anything, the 3rd stage is the smallest part of the missile, so there would be less volume. You may think this is supporting your claim, but really it's not, it is just supporting the truth.


Originally posted by tauristercus
Now lets pick the lower value of 5km for the diameter of the spiral and calculate the total surface area of:
19.6 square kilometres.

If we use the upper value of 10 kms, we get instead an area of:
78.5 square kilometres ...almost 4 times the extent.

So if you're trying to tell me that such a small volume of liquid could be expelled and manage to cover an area of sky between 19 and 78 square kilometres, then I'm afraid you're deluding yourselves but I'd sure enjoy watching you struggle and attempt to do it !



Do you know that the 3rd stage of the missile was ignited? The fuel was burning like normal. The only problem was a bent exhaust nozzle causing it to spiral.

The "small volume of liquid" is not what is being spiraled around, it is the exhaust gases created from burning the "small volume of liquid fuel". When you burn very small amounts of fuel, you get very big amounts of exhaust particles from the chemical reaction.

Nice try on that one, but you are completely forgetting about the chemical reaction of the fuel.



Originally posted by tauristercus
Ok, moving on ....

The reports gave a rough viewing time of just a few minutes (say 4 mins) before the spiral "evaporated" ... so how fast would the initial ejecta have to travel to go a distance of 2.5 kms minimum to 5 kms maximum (half the diameter) away from the "missile" in that short time period ?

Would you believe a velocity somewhere between 37.5 kms/hour and 75 kms/hour would be needed ? Thats a heck of a lot of energy and momentum that would have to come from somewhere. This would immediately imply that as liquid material was being ejected, the rate of rotation of the 3rd stage would change (conservation of angular momentum) and this would be visually reflected in the structure of the spiral which would no longer appear homogenous ... unfortunately for the missile theory, the spiral did indeed appear to be completely homogenous so that kind of puts the nackers on the ejection of liquid theory.


Once again, the rocket was burning the fuel. It was ignited. This is why people were showing videos of successful missile launches, because the burning fuel created exhaust gases which when lit by the sun look exactly like the gases that make up the spiral.

Did you know exhaust speeds from rockets is extremely fast? Some rockets have exhaust speeds of 10 times the speed of sound in air at sea level. [source]

10 times the speed of sound is around 3402 m/s.

That is 3.40200 km/s.

That is 12247.2 km/hour.

Just to be nice I will use this source:



Some typical values of the exhaust gas velocity Ve for rocket engines burning various propellants are:

1.7 to 2.9 km/s (3800 to 6500 mi/h) for liquid monopropellants
2.9 to 4.5 km/s (6500 to 10100 mi/h) for liquid bipropellants
2.1 to 3.2 km/s (4700 to 7200 mi/h) for solid propellants


1.7 km/s * 3600 seconds = 6120 km/hour

And you say:

Originally posted by tauristercus
Would you believe a velocity somewhere between 37.5 kms/hour and 75 kms/hour would be needed ?


That is child's play compared to rocket engines.

Not only do I think your spiral size calculation is wrong, but I think it is bigger, and easily done by rocket exhaust gases.



Originally posted by tauristercus
But we're not finished yet .... lets take a look at the the mysterious "collapse" of the spiral centre.

If we persist against logic and still believe that the spiral was caused by liquid being ejected from the 3rd stage, then we have ourselves a bit of a problem when trying to explain the sudden collapse of the spiral from the centre ... outwards.


Nothing collapsed... Only exhaust gases were radially traveling outward.


Originally posted by tauristercus
You used the example that once the supply of liquid was exhausted, that no more spirals could be formed and that it was the last of the liquid moving outwards that gave the illusion of a collapse.


It was the last of the exhaust particles moving outwards that gave the illusion of a black circle.


Originally posted by tauristercus
Your assumption here was that the outermost spiral (being ejected/formed first) had travelled the greater distance and was eventually caught up by the last (inner) spiral to form before the liquid ran out.


NO, nothing was "caught up". If you watch the videos, and take your eyes of the long exposure photos, you will see that ring by ring of the spiral is ejected and traveling outward all at the same speed. One layer after another layer until all the fuel was burned. Once the fuel is all gone and the exhaust was traveling at many km/hour away from the center, all that follow the exhaust gases is empty sky which create the black circle illusion.



Originally posted by tauristercus
For an inner spiral to catch up with an outer spiral, implies that the inner spiral was either travelling faster than the outer spiral ... or that the outer spiral had slowed down considerably to allow the inner spiral to catch up.

Either option is flawed.


Your impression of the event, and your entire post, are both flawed.



Originally posted by tauristercus
There is no available mechanism that could be invoked to explain why the velocity at which the liquid was ejected would increase over time. Recall that all the photos show a uniform spiral shape, otherwise with increasing eject velocity, the spirals would have started to bunch up around the centre.


You need to watch the videos, not the exaggerated images that were proven to be taken with a long exposure time.


Originally posted by tauristercus
And what about the other alternative that the outer spirals had slowed down somehow ? Conservation of momentum would imply this could not be so ... otherwise you'd have to postulate yet another mechanism to account for this slowing ... atmospheric drag ? then that would apply to every spiral so in the end they'd all still be moving at a comparable velocity relative to each other and therefore no overtaking ... so no joy there.


You are right, no joy there... the outer spirals didn't slow down, and the inner spirals didn't speed up, they all were going the same speed.



Originally posted by tauristercus
What about if the spiral formed in space ? Well, again conservation of momentum implies that the outermost and innermost spirals would all retain their initial velocities and again, no overtaking would occur.


It did happen in space... and there was no overtaking.... so you actually got something right in your post. Congrats.


Originally posted by tauristercus
So, yet again (ad nauseum) ... the missile explanation doesn't hold water (or liquid rocket fuel
)


So yet again (ad nauseum)... another post that should have been researched and fully thought out before submitted.

IT WAS A MISSILE!

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Question.

I think we concluded that the spiral was 5-10 km in diameter.

How can a spinning 12 meter rocket create a 5-10 km spiral?

Because of the expansion of gasses/fuel some said.

So this stuff expands to 5-10 km in a very short period.

But the outer rings are visible from the start and even till the "black hole" is fading out.

Some said the black hole effect was created from the last dissapating leakage, making an outward flying ring.

Why are the outer rings visible during the whole event, while the black hole ring dissappears in 2-3 seconds, if they are made of the same "leaking" stuff.

I hope that made sense, cause it doesn't make sense.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Point of No Return]



A typical hypergolic engine (means that the fuel and oxidizer ignite spontaneously upon contact, eliminating the need for igniters) has a Specific Impulse (google it or check Wikipedia if you're unsure) of about 300-350 seconds. This means it has an exhaust velocity of 9.81 times that number, ie. roughly about 3000 to 3500 m/s. That's over 3 kilometers per second.

The outer parts of a spiral with a radius of 10 kilometer would consist of particles that left the vehicle only 3 or 4 seconds earlier.

However, it might be a bit longer, as we're not sure if the white ring was propellants that had been combusted and expelled from a working rocket nozzle, or just gas or liquid leaking out.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

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


Watch this. It explains everything.


That's EXACTLY what I believe happened! :-)



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I posted this in the "Tequila Sunrise" thread... but I think it's relevant to this discussion...

Okay... did some research on the internet and here is what I found so far...

Reason for the blue... what appeared to be light in the sky:


Liquid hydrogen and oxygen burn clean, leaving a by-product of water vapor.

This is used in a lot of 3 stages on missiles:
Source:
Source: Wikipedia


The Russian defense ministry reported that the first two stages of the rocket worked properly, but a technical failure in the third stage resulted in the launch failure.

Water vapor in the higher parts of the atmosphere would reflect the light from the sun... (That you can't see) and also the blue sky. This is the same reason why you see Noctilucent clouds like in this picture:


Also... Here is this explanation on the Norway Lights:


The Russian Ministry of Defence later reported that the spiral anomaly was caused by a test launch of a Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile from the RFS Dmitriy Donskoy, located in the White Sea, which had failed because of a malfunction of the missile's third stage. Russian defence analyst Pavel Felgenhauer stated to AFP that "Such lights and clouds appear from time to time when a missile fails in the upper layers of the atmosphere and have been reported before ... At least this failed test made some nice fireworks for the Norwegians." [12][13] Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, suggested that the unusual light display occurred when the missile's third stage nozzle was damaged, causing the exhaust to come out sideways and sending the missile into a spin.[3]

Source: Norway Lights

So... there's an explanation of the what appeared to be a blue light... and the spiral... Well, that's easily explained and has been explained many times on here.

Oh yeah... and it appears that they have found the guys that shot off this missile...




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah Johnson
Hi, this is my first time posting on ATS so I would like to say hello to everyone and my thoughts on the subject is that I don't believe it's a missle at all, but I don't have any Idea what else it could be. I was a UFO skeptic up until the O'Hare sghting a few years back, that changed my whole outlook on UFO's and to this day is probably in my opinion the most convincing evidence or event that has occured thus far and I know there must be pictures of it so there has to be a damn good reason why there not being shown, that being said, if I were to take a guess I think it was a portal of some kind, man made or not.


As a veteran of this forum (I joined this morning
), I welcome you to our community.


You say that you don't have any idea what it could be, but yet you believe it wasn't a missile. Do you have any reason to believe it was not a missile?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
If we had to duplicate this manouvre with the space shuttle, all we have to do is drill holes in it, than it will fly away in a perfect spiral.

Right?


Maybe the rotation of the missile was intended? Maybe the hole in the side didn't produce any significant thrust to throw the missile into a variable spin? Maybe the missile is spin stabilized and is supposed to rotate like that, and that the blue trail is the normal combustion and the white spiral is matter leaking out to the side of a ruptured tank?



Whatever sport. Even Phage considers it possible that it was some kind of new tech causing the spiral.


Sorry, who is Phage and why should his/her word be given more weight than anyone else's?



I'm trying to find the truth by asking questions. I don't care if I'm wrong from time to time.


This is a very good thing. People should be seeking the truth and ask questions!



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hagbard_Celine
Now what interests me is the OP suggested connection with the research facility in Norway. Is it possible to send types of concentrated emf or other signals through the atmosphere to excite the particles to create an aurora type event similar to what we saw in the video?


The problem with this theory is that the research facility is too close by. This phenomenon was seen from half the counry (and Norway is a long country) and was reported to be in the east/northeast from all observation sites. This means that the phenomenon must have been quite far away. If a Norwegian research facility had created spirals in the sky over Russia, why would Russian authorities not only accept this but even take the blame and admit it was a failed Bulava missile?



Looking at other videos of Russian ICBM missiles the comparisons lead me to believe that it was not the case of a failed attempt at a military test.


Looking at the failure of Space Shuttle Challenger, using the same logic, you would arrive at the conclusion that the Columbia accident was no space shuttle accident, because it looked so radically different.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, suggested that the unusual light display occurred when the missile's third stage nozzle was damaged, causing the exhaust to come out sideways and sending the missile into a spin.[3]


So it wasn't a hole, leaking fuel that caused it to spin, like that simulation claimed?

Where did the double spiral come from?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 





NO, nothing was "caught up". If you watch the videos, and take your eyes of the long exposure photos, you will see that ring by ring of the spiral is ejected and traveling outward all at the same speed.


To me, in the videos it still looks like the outer spiral is still visible while the last piece of spiral is going outwards, making it look like it was catching up to the outer spiral.

That's what I see in the videos.




Do you know that the 3rd stage of the missile was ignited? The fuel was burning like normal. The only problem was a bent exhaust nozzle causing it to spiral.


So it wasn't the leaking fuel from the hole, like in the sim? I thought you said the sim explained it all.

Did you change your mind?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rfoshaug
 





Sorry, who is Phage and why should his/her word be given more weight than anyone else's?


It shouldn't, and I'm not doing that.

He is a skeptic extra ordinaire, a knowledgeable rational fundamentalist, I merely pointed out that even he was willing to consider other options.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rfoshaug

The problem with this theory is that the research facility is too close by. This phenomenon was seen from half the counry (and Norway is a long country) and was reported to be in the east/northeast from all observation sites. This means that the phenomenon must have been quite far away. If a Norwegian research facility had created spirals in the sky over Russia, why would Russian authorities not only accept this but even take the blame and admit it was a failed Bulava missile?


Now that makes sense. I'm going back and looking at the reports to see if the alignment makes sense. I admit that the blame thing is a large issue. It doesn't make sense for the Russians to take blame for a problem with Norway's tech. In fact I think I've stated that before. In line however with previous statements I find it difficult to imagine that other nations would not have witnessed the same event. With the way weather conditions are how is it possible for entire Nations to be blocked out, however I do see your point.

I have to bug out for a few hours but I'll be working on this problem in my theory. The Russians aren't ones for just being "Our bad" when it wasn't.



Looking at the failure of Space Shuttle Challenger, using the same logic, you would arrive at the conclusion that the Columbia accident was no space shuttle accident, because it looked so radically different.


Your point is logical yes, however there are videos of the rockets and even failed attempts to launch ICBMs. I've been looking around and still by comparison of failed missions I still see massive differences. The emissions is what I'm hung up on, and before we get into it I have heard the explanation of the missile rotating due to a rupture in the side that would cause spin but I'm still looking into that. I don't think anybody should take a person at their word.

I had a discussion on this thread before that it could be Black Tech but I find it as hard to believe the Russians would test Black Tech for the world to see as it is for me to believe that two other nations with line of sight missed such an event.

Thanks for the input I'll be working on it!!!


[edit on 17-12-2009 by Hagbard_Celine]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
To me, in the videos it still looks like the outer spiral is still visible while the last piece of spiral is going outwards, making it look like it was catching up to the outer spiral.


That's what I see in the videos.



Then I think you should get your eyes checked. The outer spiral is constantly moving outwards at the same exact speed as the last piece of spiral. The outer spiral is constantly moving, it doesn't stop. Same with the inner spiral.



Originally posted by Point of No Return
So it wasn't the leaking fuel from the hole, like in the sim? I thought you said the sim explained it all.

Did you change your mind?


No I didn't change my mind. You just honestly suck at reading, and you are constantly looking for inconsistencies in places where they don't exist, and you are getting false positives.

I agree with the physics of the simulation, however I don't agree that it is just fuel "leaking out", it is actually fuel being burned and thrusting out. When I said "it explains it all" I was talking about the creation of the spiral and the physics behind a rotating object ejecting particles to form a spiral.

Do you even understand what would make the missile spin? It's the constant thrust from the burning fuel rocket engine that is making it spin. A simple leak of fuel wouldn't make the missile spin that fast and long, even if it was pressurized. It was the thrust from the rocket engine that made it spin..

The rocket engine didn't fail... it started and was going the entire time....
It was the guidance system that failed. Ive read it was a bent exhaust nozzle which I believe would cause the entire event.





[edit on 17-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 





The rocket engine didn't fail... it started and was going the entire time.... It was the guidance system that failed. Ive read it was a bent exhaust nozzle which I believe would cause the entire event.


Well who sucks at reading?

I've pointed out that the exhaust was burning several times in my past posts.

I also pointed out that sim was not accurate, but you said at least 2 times that it explained everything.

Now you are making different statements.

Now you are saying that there wasn't even a leak, remember the sim showed two exhausts.

Now you say the guidance system failed, you never mentioned that before.

You did change your mind apparently.

edit to add.




A simple leak of fuel wouldn't make the missile spin that fast and long, even if it was pressurized.


That's been my point the whole time, OMG.

And I suck at reading.


[edit on 17-12-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
The Russians originally DENIED it was them only to admit to it some hours later !



new topics

top topics



 
286
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join