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: 24
286
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Originally posted by ProRipp
The Russians originally DENIED it was them only to admit to it some hours later !


Can you prove that, because I'm pretty sure that is a rumor, or an out of context misunderstanding. I have yet to see anyone back up that claim.



answers.yahoo.com...

Mystery as spiral blue light display hovers above Norway | Mail Online
10 Dec 2009 ... Norway's spiral light display 'was down to a failed Russian Bulava ... But last night Russia DENIED it had been conducting missile tests in ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Mystery-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.htm


More footage - Spiral UFO over Norway December 9 2009 - Russian ...
More footage - Spiral UFO over Norway December 9 2009 - Russian Military DENY its a rocket. The russian Military say this object was not a rocket not. ...
www.realufos.net/.../more-footage-that-spiral-ufo-over.html - United States


And this from the sun

www.thesun.co.uk...
Chief Scientist Erik Tandberg, at the Norwegian Space Centre, said that he too was "totally amazed" by the spiral.
He agreed with many other experts that the spiral pattern could have been caused by a missile from Russia — something the Russian military have strongly DENIED.

Read more: www.thesun.co.uk...

Do you SEE a pattern in these statements ?

[edit on 063131p://12America/Chicago18 by ProRipp]




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


It's not uncommon for countries to lie about failures in their military programs, for obvious reasons.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by ProRipp
 


It's not uncommon for countries to lie about failures in their military programs, for obvious reasons.


Please don't presume i'm so naive ? I understand what you say, but after they announced that they were testing the day before ? Why deny it ? It makes no sense to me and leads me to believe they agreed to cover something for someone ? I don't know who, why or what for, it just smell's thats all i'm trying to say !

[edit on 123131p://12America/Chicago19 by ProRipp]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


The only way your hypothesis would make sense is if governments are both perfect and imperfect at the same time. They're not.

Russia launched a missile that intended to show the world how great Russia is, and it screwed up. They denied the launch, then everyone realised it was a missile, and they confessed.

Big whoop - it happens all the time with military testing that goes wrong. Trying to read into it without any reason to do so is futile.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
That was not a missle.
It looks nothing like any missle/rocket failure ever observed.

I would like someone to tell me how the white missle created spiral, which was MILES in diameter, managed to move so far away from the source without dilution.
It can't, and it did not.

I think this was man made, just not by a missle.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


Because the missile in question is an ICBM, and as such was travelling at an altitude of 100km+, where the atmosphere is extremely rarefied. The relative speeds of the ejecta, the missile, and the the lack of atmosphere made a very stable, very regular spiral. I've posted this video so many times, but I guess some folks aren't watching:



It doesn't help if you assume you are correct, that you can never be wrong, and that just because you don't understand it didn't and couldn't happen. Deny ignorance. And as for it never happening before, you are again arguing from your ignorance - just because you've never heard of it, doesn't mean it's not happened:

Another sky spiral

and




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


Because the missile in question is an ICBM, and as such was travelling at an altitude of 100km+, where the atmosphere is extremely rarefied. The relative speeds of the ejecta, the missile, and the the lack of atmosphere made a very stable, very regular spiral. I've posted this video so many times, but I guess some folks aren't watching:



It doesn't help if you assume you are correct, that you can never be wrong, and that just because you don't understand it didn't and couldn't happen. Deny ignorance. And as for it never happening before, you are again arguing from your ignorance - just because you've never heard of it, doesn't mean it's not happened:



and




You guys kill me..lol, but...Ok, I will be sarcastic and assume you are correct. So if it was over 100km up, just how big was the outside of the spiral? And it did not dilute? LOL!
Anyone can see the third stage of a sub launched missle did it! Har Har Har!

btw, that first video (it's an animation, not a simulation)proves and means nothing.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


It's the animated output of a simulation, generated by a computer physics package. It's accurate. It answers why the spiral is the way it is, and why it did not 'dilute' in a near-vacuum. The ejecta was sprayed out, and it kept on moving because it was ejected at great velocity, and there was very little air resistance (because there was very little air). Simple Newtonian mechanics.

Just because you can't wrap your mind around it doesn't make it false.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious

Just because you can't wrap your mind around it doesn't make it false.


Here we go....I'm gonna try to be cool though.

I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but I have done more research on this one subject than I care to admit. I will take all of your points, and state this to you, "It is way to freaking perfect for your explanation!"

One question, I will ask again. How big do you think the outside of the spiral was? (not the animation)

I call BS



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


Why does the size of the spiral matter? Can you show me how that would? The physics of this event are so simple it's astounding: A spinning body ejecting high-velocity matter from one side, and a different kind of high-velocity matter from the back. That will, 100% of the time, create a spiral.

Here's a firework doing practically the same thing, only on a tiny scale (and in a relatively infinitely dense atmosphere):


It was so perfect because ICBMs travel so high and fast in order to travel the distances they do. The ICBM had clearly been flying for quite some distance, because of the exhaust trail. It could be seen stretching down to the horizon. Once in front of the illuminated sky, its white, cloudy nature could be observed a lot clearer. Russia admitted the failure occurred in the third stage, when the missile would have been (according to usual flight characteristics of ICBMs) at an altitude of between 100km and 200km (as the thirs stage starts). Indeed, Nicolas Gumina has used trigonometry to locate where the missile launched, which turns out to be the White Sea, where Russia launches its submarine ICBMs. He also estimated the object to be between 97 and 106 miles high, which is perfectly within the range one would expect when discussing ICBMs at the start of their third stage. At that altitude, which is past the Kármán line, and so technically in space, there is no air, so the ejecta could continue in its path, only accelerating towards the Earth (but not slowing down laterally), without being buffeted by winds. As Newton said, something will keep moving in the same direction, at the same speed, unless a force is applied to it. The spiral had no other forces, except gravity pulling it towards the earth) to slow it down as it spread. Hence, we see what we saw - what a spiral of ejecta looks like after being sprayed in space, and lit up by the sun.

It's not a mystery.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by davesidious]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


Why does the size of the spiral matter? Can you show me how that would?

C'mon dave ... are you serious ? Why do you keep spouting such lack of basic understanding ?
Of course it matters ! The diameter of the spiral has a direct correlation as to how far away the spiral could potentially be seen.
A spiral of 1m diameter won't be seen from 10kms distance but a spiral of 1km certainly would !




It was so perfect because ICBMs travel so high and fast in order to travel the distances they do. The ICBM had clearly been flying for quite some distance, because of the exhaust trail. It could be seen stretching down to the horizon ...

As Newton said, something will keep moving in the same direction, at the same speed ...

So ... the obvious question based on the above is .... what direction was your missile moving in ? This question is crucial and if you can't answer it, your entire failed missile scenario also fails !
"WAS THE MISSILE TRAVELING EAST, WEST OR ACTUALLY STATIONARY AT THE TIME OF SPIRAL CREATION ?"



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


I've already answered that question. It was moving from the east, towards the north, in an arc (being a missile an' all).

The size really doesn't matter unless you can say, unequivocally, that a spiral only in a certain range of sizes can be from a missile. Otherwise what does it matter?

Nicolas Gumina, lead spokesperson to the Southern California Weather Authority, has used trigonometry on the photos and the locations of said photos, and estimated the altitude of the missile being about 100 miles, placing it firmly in space. Which would explain the near-perfect nature of the spiral (no atmosphere to degrade the motion of the particles).



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Dave, I'm still trying to be cool, but the pinwheel video and your head seem to have something in common. Don't insult me with that stupid crap.

I think the spiral size as seen in the stills, is so freaking big if it was 100mi. up that a rocket could not do it.

I'm going to guess the o.d. of the spiral would have been around 50 miles or more, if it was 100 mi up.

Even if it where only a mile in diameter, the spiral would become faded away from the source, and not have a sharp outline as in the pics.
That "perfect spiral" is....how big again?

Dave, I'm glad you think it is a rocket....for real! Alas, you have yet to convince, so I must reject your reality & substitute (it wuz Santa!).



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
So, I was reading the comments on that link Dave posted on his altitude reference, and found this little gem in the comments:

[Post by Jon]

OK Weather Examiner, i've just crunched the numbers, and this is why you are wrong:

according to your ASSUMPTION that the spiral is 96mi off the ground, this means that one wavelength of the spiral's "ripples" (we'll call it L) is 1.04 Degrees. So, converting to miles, L=9.1 miles.

Now, you can watch any video of the spiral and see that it rotates about once per sec, so it's frequency (f) =1/sec.
It is known that the (wavelength)*(frequency) of a wave equals a wave's velocity (v).

=> L*f=(9.1mi)(1/sec)=9.1 MILES PER SECOND. this is about 48,000 FEET/SEC. THIS IS INSANELY FAST FOR SMOKE (let alone anything we know of) TO BE MOVING WHILE MAINTAINING IT'S FORM.

Now, here's the really weird part: even if the spiral was right over the mountain (so about 9.7mi from the ground), the velocity of it's "ripples" would be around 1,000 FEET/SEC.
that's about mach 1.5....still too fast for smoke, no?

check my maths.
December 15, 11:55 PM

[End of Post bt Jon]

The reply from the weather guy was lame, good reading though.

Huh!



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus
 


I've already answered that question. It was moving from the east, towards the north, in an arc (being a missile an' all).

The size really doesn't matter unless you can say, unequivocally, that a spiral only in a certain range of sizes can be from a missile. Otherwise what does it matter?

Nicolas Gumina, lead spokesperson to the Southern California Weather Authority, has used trigonometry on the photos and the locations of said photos, and estimated the altitude of the missile being about 100 miles, placing it firmly in space. Which would explain the near-perfect nature of the spiral (no atmosphere to degrade the motion of the particles).


Unfortunately for Mr Nicolas Gumina, it took me all of 2 mins to see that he'd stuffed up his use of trigonometry.
Sometimes these so-called "experts" aren't really all that "expert" after all ! Go take a look at my critique in the other spiral thread ... couldn't be bothered reproducing my analysis of his sloppy work here again.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


Mach 1.5 ? There musta been a hell of a bang to wake the locals ! Oh hang on there was no bang, no sonic boom type bang ! Was there ? No thought not !



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
WHY WAS THIS SO CALLED MISSILE NOT ABORTED???? I always thought that a failed ICBM would be taken out (blown up) or at least the engines shut down so there would be less chance of danger to
air or space traffic. Let alone things and folks on the ground below.

The only rational answer is--NO MISSILE



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Nice job OP
second line



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


There is no sonic boom from an ICBM. ever seen a launch? Didn't think so! Yeah guys, it was a hologram! ( Waiting for that silly idea!). Such goofyness is amazing, you guys don't give a flying rocket about truth, just want to indulge your sci fi fantasies! Quite hilarious!



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
OK I'm going to back the OP and put a kibosh on this utter nonsense right now.

The Space Shuttle is massive and the engine flames can be seen in North Carolina but thats it. This Russian ICBM is a fire cracker compared to the shuttle.

I live on the west coast of Florida and you can barely make out a plume on a good night. No way in hell can you see a smoke trail or plume from 500 miles away by the shuttle let alone a Russian Sub launched ICBM. Their old land based ones that were used in the space program might come close but not from this tiny thing.

Obama was in the area that same time. This was either a light show to make people think he is God like or it was NATO detecting the Russian launch and giving him protection in the form of a new uber missile defense based on HARP technology. The NATO generals just made the Russians cry, because they just showed them that Russian missiles are not anything to worry about. THAT IS WHY RUSSIA IS WANTING TO TAKE THE BLAME FOR THIS SHOW, TO SAVE SOME FACE.

The U.S. Navy runs HARP and they also control missile defense, Think I'm wrong then ask yourself who has more interceptors. The navy has them on many ships. The navy also has more nuclear warheads ready to launch than any other branch.
This is why the U.S. Navy has their own space program that is highly secret.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Sky watcher]




top topics



 
286
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join