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: 26
286
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Well just ignore the video and it's similarities then, because you won't get what you're asking for.

While you're at it, ignore the tell tale exhaust trail, ignore the notification of launch on Navtext, ignore the comments made by physicists, engineers, rocket surgeons and brain scientists.

Because all this is obviously a big cover up for what?

EISCATT?
HAARP?
Wormhole from the Pleidians?
Wormhole From the Ashtar command?
Wormhole from Matreyau?
secret elixer to combine with chemtrails?
Santa's sleigh exploding?

Every numpty has jumped up and down proclaiming that they know what caused it, the thing is only 1 is right.

So you may guffaw at the rocket theory but bugger me, it makes a whole lot more sense than some of the hair brained theories I've been reading!




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


I'm not the one claiming anything, I'm merely pointing out that because EISCATT was using power at the time of the spiral doesn't mean it is the cause of the spiral.

In fact you make a very good point by pointing out that the heater wasn't activated at the time of the spiral, effectively debunking the whole ESCIATT caused the spiral theory.

Nice work!



[edit on 27/12/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I'm not denying that there was a missile involved.

The horizon exhaust trail and the blue haze do imply a rocket was fired, and footage and pics of previous launches also show those two things.

I just don't believe it was a missile failure that created the spiral.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


But who says the Heater has to be activated for something like that to happen? Dude, I see your point, and I can see others points as well. Seems like there are very compelling arguments on both sides. Like you said, there is only one right answer, who is to say which it is?



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


If that same rocket which caused the blue exhaust was carrying a second rocket on top of it (which ICBMs do), and that rocket on top was not released properly when its engine started to fire, and the exhaust was vented laterally (which would happen if the two rockets were stuck together, or even if the earlier stage had fallen off but the third stage was damaged), then a perfect spiral would be formed. It's not a stretch of the imagination - it's basic Newtonian physics. The ICBM was out of the atmosphere, in space. That means there was no air to slow the exhaust down, and no wind to blow through the spiral messing it up.

It just makes far too much sense for it to be a failed Russian missile than anything else - we don't have to make massive leaps of faith, or to claim some installation nowhere near the spiral had something to do with it in some hitherto-unknown way, etc. etc. It's just basic physics - Russia sends a missile up, and it fails (as many other Bulava missiles have), and we get a spiral.

I never wanted to start an argument in this thread - I always thought people would like to deny ignorance. Oops!



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





Well just ignore the video and it's similarities then, because you won't get what you're asking for.


I'm just asking for the documented evidence that a Russian missile can create such a spiral.

Is that too much to ask? You are all just assuming the spiral was created by a missile because of the other evidence, it's not a fact, it never happened before, at least not acknowledged as being a Russian missile.

Again, your video was similar, but not nearly the same, and, again, it had no proof whatsoever of being a Russian missile.

Just pointing that out, like you would Chad.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


I'm not the one claiming anything, I'm merely pointing out that because EISCATT was using power at the time of the spiral doesn't mean it is the cause of the spiral.

In fact you make a very good point by pointing out that the heater wasn't activated at the time of the spiral, effectively debunking the whole ESCIATT caused the spiral theory.

Nice work!



[edit on 27/12/09 by Chadwickus]


Here you go..make another assumtion...but wait you know what they say..

I did not point out anything other than you are assuming what is and is not on, or how the equipmet works. Nothing about the presence or lack of a heater...that's you baby!

For your information, voltage and amperage are inversly proportional, so results could vary on any test condition. I was a radar tech in the USAF, and was stationed on a test base, therefore I have a clue to testing variations. If a transmitter load increases, the voltage drops...right? Things like frequency and bias can cause load variation ...right?
So why couln't I create results that looked like the heater was on without turning it on?

You read that plot like a palmreader!



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

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


That means there was no air to slow the exhaust down, and no wind to blow through the spiral messing it up.



Exactly no air to slow the exhaust, so the exhaust should have continued to rapidly disperse, forming a loose haze not tight, precise lines that lingered for a relatively long time. Basic physics.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 





It just makes far too much sense for it to be a failed Russian missile than anything else - we don't have to make massive leaps of faith, or to claim some installation nowhere near the spiral had something to do with it in some hitherto-unknown way, etc. etc. It's just basic physics - Russia sends a missile up, and it fails (as many other Bulava missiles have), and we get a spiral. I never wanted to start an argument in this thread - I always thought people would like to deny ignorance. Oops!


If that is "denying ignorance" for you, we are indeed very different persons.

To go for the simple solution, because it's simple, is not denying ignorance, it's promoting ignorance.

Ughh.

I just see too many things wrong with it too blindly go for the simple solution. I need more evidence to accept the official story.

That's denying ignorance for ya!



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
can i suggest this thread ? :- www.abovetopsecret.com...


and people may like to read this:- divinecosmos.com...



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


It's not just simple - it's simple *and* supported by all evidence and challenged by none. That's the whole point - we have two theories that apparently explain the phenomenon. The first is supported by all evidence, and the others require massive leaps of faith. The first has yet to be challenged by any evidence that has been discovered, the rest have yet to be supported by any evidence at all.

Saying the two are even slightly the same is taking the mickey. It's bad science to ignore a simple, elegant, demonstrable theory in favour of a convoluted, messy theory that can never be demonstrated to be true. That's really, really bad science.

So yeah, I'm denying ignorance. Until someone can disprove all the supporting evidence, it's folly to assume or even entertain the idea that something else caused the spiral. That's not how science works. It may be how conspiracy theories work, but until conspiracy theories start to amount to anything, I think humanity is better off ignoring them.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

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


It's not just simple - it's simple *and* supported by all evidence and challenged by none. That's the whole point - we have two theories that apparently explain the phenomenon. The first is supported by all evidence, and the others require massive leaps of faith. The first has yet to be challenged by any evidence that has been discovered, the rest have yet to be supported by any evidence at all.

Saying the two are even slightly the same is taking the mickey. It's bad science to ignore a simple, elegant, demonstrable theory in favour of a convoluted, messy theory that can never be demonstrated to be true. That's really, really bad science.

So yeah, I'm denying ignorance. Until someone can disprove all the supporting evidence, it's folly to assume or even entertain the idea that something else caused the spiral. That's not how science works. It may be how conspiracy theories work, but until conspiracy theories start to amount to anything, I think humanity is better off ignoring them.


Welp that about sums it up.

Dave has spoken, and we should now all close our minds and accept his theory.

The world may as well be flat, but if you say so dave.

Go ahead and stick your head in that hole, as you should be ashaimed for asking us to stop seeking the truth!
Man!



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


No, the demonstrable truth has spoken - I'm just the one pointing that out. This has nothing to do with me.

reply to post by Deny Arrogance
 


It behaved exactly as it should have. It formed spirals that eventually dispersed as their density became too low to reflect enough light to be visible on Earth, eventually being pulled in to the atmosphere.

reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Sure! Here you go. Couple that with the Russian admission of a failed third stage, and you've got all the ingredients you need to create a spiral. Creating a spiral is trivial. If that's the crux of your argument, you should give up now



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


I'm tired of all these FaRRTs talking outa their brown starfish now ! It has been PROVEN beyond doubt using Mathematics,Trigonometry,Physics and plain COMMON bloody SENSE that it was NOT a failed missile ! Also the Russians denied at first that they're rocket had failed !

Mystery as spiral blue light display hovers above Norway | Mail Online
10 Dec 2009 ... ... But last night Russia denied it had been conducting missile tests in ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Mystery-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.htm


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...


[edit on 083131p://12America/Chicago28 by ProRipp]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


No, it has not been proven that it can't be a missile. None of the 'proof' that it couldn't have been a missile is actual proof, but conjecture. And of course Russia said it wasn't their missile failing, as the Bulava missile project is a massive embarrassment for the Russian government, as the missiles keep failing. Out of 13 launches so far, only 6 were successful. That's less than 50%.

And for each expert that says it *could* be a missile, I can find several who say it *was* a missile.

Nice try.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Though popularly attributed to a failed test-launch of a Russian “RSM-56 Bulava” Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM), it can be shown with some basic trigonometry that this explanation is physically impossible.

From a single, time-lapsed photo and any one of the many videos of the spirals, the speed at which the “ripples” caused by the phenomena propagate can be calculated at two limits:

1) In the lower limit, the spiral is taken to be directly over the mountain in the photograph (9.63km away) and the velocity of the “ripple” propagation is approximately 316.8m/s.

2) In the upper limit, the spiral is taken to be directly over the White Sea (971km away) and the velocity of the “ripple” propagation is found to be approximately 32,873m/s.

It is assumed that the missile, the alleged cause of the spirals, would be somewhere between these two points at the moment of the malfunction. Yet, these velocities suggest that the observed “ripples” cannot be smoke -- and therefore the spiral could not be caused by a missile.

The lower limit velocity of 316.58m/s is equivalent to about 710mph. This is over twice the 318mph world record for the fastest wind speed recorded (which was caused by a tornado).
The speed of the “ripple” propagation at the lower limit is far greater than any particulate could travel in the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the “ripples” move away from the centre of the spiral with a near constant speed. Particulates moving at such speeds should dissipate quite rapidly.
This impossible speed is calculated as if the spiral's centre were above the mountain. And yet, the further away we assume the spiral is, the larger the speed of the “ripples.”...
There is no physically possible distance at which a missile could be the cause of the spirals in question.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


Aaah - cool. A bunch of figures plucked out of thin air, based on comical assertions.

1. The missile is not going to be over the mountain, as Russia wouldn't launch a missile over Norway, but over the Arctic Ocean, towards the Pacific

2. As for your second claim that the missile was over the White Sea, well, it's an ICBM, so why would it, on its third stage, still be over the White Sea?

Your guesswork is terrible.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
The lower limit velocity of 316.58m/s is equivalent to about 710mph. This is over twice the 318mph world record for the fastest wind speed recorded (which was caused by a tornado).

You're assuming that the exhaust from a rocket travels no faster than the fastest natural "wind"? That's preposterous, rocket exhaust is well-known to travel at very high velocities, roughly 4km/sec for a chemical rocket. I don't know how you arrived at your figures, but my own calculations taken using the known size and distance of the mountain in the skjervoy shot showed me that a rocket with ~4km/sec exhaust would be perfectly capable of producing a spiral that size within the necessary time frame.


The speed of the “ripple” propagation at the lower limit is far greater than any particulate could travel in the atmosphere.

You mean a rocket's exhaust is incapable of traveling faster than a tornado? Why? Especially at 160km altitude where there is no atmosphere to speak of.


Furthermore, the “ripples” move away from the centre of the spiral with a near constant speed. Particulates moving at such speeds should dissipate quite rapidly.

Newton's laws of motion; exhaust in space will keep a constant velocity. And it will dissipate, but who are you to say it didn't dissipate fast enough? The particles are going to be traveling in fairly parallel paths coming out of the rocket, and they'll maintain a constant direction.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Then please write your thesis and post showing the reasons why it was a failed missile ? Respects



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Why is THIS case study getting every thread about this subject closed? This is my FIRST post. I have been a troll on here for years and this is interesting me more than anything before. Especially since Russia is now showing yet another 'spiral' over their country and claiming it to be a successful missile. This does not seem likely as a spiral missile path is not the path of least resistance for something that is traveling in the troposphere.

www.mediafire.c...om...

I'm having some physics and mathemetics friends of mine go over this case study tonight.

Sorry, if this is out of context entirely on this thread, its the first one I found and I have other stuff going on right now.

However, I did see where a mod shut down two other threads pertaining to this information stating that ATS does not allow personal opinions...when in fact that is 80% of this site is really made up of.

Opinions and conjecture...now we have a case study that is questioning the physics and mathematics of the 'failed launch scenario' and its not being allowed? What gives?



new topics

top topics



 
286
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join