It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 31
<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by davesidious

Once again, do you have a link to back up your claims, because wiki doesn't count, and nothing on the wiki links back up your claims anyway.

The rest of your rant isn't worth reading.

You bore me to death.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:20 AM
reply to post by poet1b

Look at the sources the wiki articles cite. Just do that. Of course wikipedia doesn't prove anything, but the sources do. You don't even know how an encyclopaedia works, yet you think you know everything about ICBMs and physics.


posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:37 AM
reply to post by davesidious

Oh wow, let my give you an equally valid link. Everything you need to know that proves your wrong.

The information is in there somewhere. Get back to me when you have finished reading it all.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by poet1b

How dense are you? The links are there, concisely, with text demonstrating the principles they then go into depth on. If you can't be bothered to read the link you asked for, then you have no place in rational debate.

How pathetic. This seems to be your last ditch attempt to dodge the discussion, so you can keep pretending that mega space clouds were responsible, or maybe a gigantic unicorn flew out of the white sea, disguised by the Russians because of the unicorn-Russian pact signed into power in early '68, and farted and burped two massive spirals in space, which is what unicorns do.

There is as much evidence for my new unicorn hypothesis than your strange, childlike space cloud hypothesis.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 05:30 PM
Just stating a fact....don't give me no negative vibes.......but if a Rocket leaks at any stage from its housing it would burst into flames due to the depressurization of the fuel tank the rocket would be toast......
Just a thought if it was a rocket would the stopping in mid air throw off Anti-missile tech and then it spirals and shoots off in another direction?
See I'm open to all explainations but until we have hard evidence its all conjecture. we'll keep going round and round like the spiral itself.
my conclusion on this subject is as I see it.
1. Missile
2. Harpp
3. Atmospheric Interference
4. UFO ET or Homegrown Wormhole
So without a smoking gun its just conjecture....all the links and websites on the planet are no match for real evidence Drebris, Aliens declaring, "we come in peace" or Norweigans with barbeque forks loaded with edam over a harp instalation.
So I'll say the jury is out on this topic.

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:20 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by PhotonEffect

There is something called science, where phenomenon is analyzed and theories are developed.

Yes, which has been done here and the determination has been that it's a rocket.

You have what looks kind of like an unusual missile plume in the background, but it could easily be a cloud, or a jet trail.

Poet, come on man, there is a clear connection between the plume and the spiral. It's all part of the same event. It's not a jet trail or a cloud and you know that.

When you look at how rockets work, their turning capabilities, the spiral is not a realistic product of a rocket failure.

And by your estimation neither is the rocket plume... but I guess you must've ignored all the videos presented in this thread and others of previous rocket failures showing just how very similar (albeit not exact) spiral effects can occur. (check china and russia videos)

Being that it looks nothing at all like the result of a rocket failure, why do you insist that it must be a rocket failure?

Well, I see it one way and you clearly see it another. However, I base my interpretation of it on the evidence. I'll admit that I couldn't believe that such a thing could have been caused by a stupid ole rocket, but luckily for me my investigation into the matter has shown me otherwise... and I'm ok with that

Do you have any analysis at all that explains how a rocket failure could create this spiral. I have yet to see anyone who claims this is a rocket offer any explanation at all of how a rocket could create what we are seeing in these pictures. Something is clearly going on here beyond the norm.

If I had a quarter for a every time I've read statements like these. Fact is there's been plenty of analysis and videos provided that show how this certainly could've been a rocket that caused it. I take it that you've seen it, but I guess you would rather just disregard it.

If anything, here is the most thorough analysis that Ive seen thus far that at least pin points the location of where the spiral originated from... somewhere in the vicinity of the White Sea where it just so happens Russia warned ahead of time that it was going to be launching rockets from...

To believe anything other than rocket launch would imply that there is a vast conspiracy going on here where one doesn't exist..... except of course... on internet forums.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by PhotonEffect]

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 05:44 AM
reply to post by DreamerOracle

Not necessarily. There is absolutely no reason why a leaking rocket must explode.

The rocket did not stop in mid-air. Only eyewitness accounts state that, and as people were using their eyes to look at something in space, the motion of the rocket was almost invisible to the naked eye (but not to subsequent analysis of video footage of the event).

1. Definitely.
2. No way - HAARP, and HAARP-like installations, simply don't have anywhere near the power or equipment to create something like that. It's only speculation by uninformed people that has kept that 'explanation' on the table.
3. It was in space, where there is no atmosphere, so it can't be that
4. There is absolutely no evidence for either an alien or wormhole explanation

All the evidence points to it being a failed Russian launch. The warning, the visuals, the analysis, everything ties it to that. Nothing has contradicted that explanation.

You can say the jury is out on this topic, but that doesn't make it true. The jury has said it's a failed Russian missile. That's what all the evidence points to, even if some folks on ATS can't understand it.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 07:52 AM

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 08:16 AM
Actually I have come up with a theory from responses with eupeptic and Jim Oberg on the China spiral thread. Jim was stating that this is created by an exhaust plume shooting out from the side of the rocket as it is spinning, challenging me to look at the acceleration rates to prove we would have to be looking at a spiral. Looking at an enlarged gate photo from the zipped folder provided by eupeptic, I started counting rings, and I noticed that the large rings that make up the spiral continue on down to the lower right hand side of the photo, and I realized that I have been looking at a giant corkscrew the whole time, which is what I have been saying we should be seeing if this is a rocket. Then it became very easy to see what we are looking at in this picture.

The rocket is not going in giant loops, that is not what is going on here.

The rocket is heading along, at first in its expected trajectory across the field of view of the people in Norway.

We see two plums of rocket exhaust coming out of the rocket. The blue corkscrew is the main exhaust going out the back of the rocket. The much larger white corkscrew is a plume of exhaust that must be shooting out from the side of the rocket, possibly as great as 90 degrees out the side. The plume of exhaust going out the side of the rocket is doing two things, one causing the rocket to spin on its X axis, and two, causing the rocket to turn in a southern direction.

In the photograph we see the giant twisting trail of the exhaust of the rocket as it starts out going across the field of view. As it turns it starts heading directly away from the people in Norway, so that they are looking down the barrel of the huge corkscrew and it appears to be a spiral, and that is what we are seeing in the photographs.

I think in a nutshell, this explains what we are seeing. Chances are that the sunlight is position just right for the people in Norway to see the much larger spiral so clearly, while people in daylight wouldn't see it.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 08:35 AM
reply to post by DreamerOracle

I agree with you that if this is created by a leak, we should have seen the rocket explode.

I took a class on solid fueled rocket propellant about twenty years ago, and while my memory is a bit foggy on some of the details, I am pretty sure that any time the rocket starts venting out the side, the destruction of the rocket follows quickly.

If you look down into a solid fueled rocket motor you would the sides coated with what looks like spongy material with an empty well in the center running down the length of the motor, where the spongy looking propellant surface looks like a multi-pointed star. When it ignites, the igniter at the front or at the top of the well, so to speak, lights up the exposed surface area of the rocket and the surface areas burn until all the fuel is gone.

Now if there is any cracks in the thick layer of solid propellant, the flame will work its way down into that crack, and if it makes it to the casing, it will burn through that casing like a hot knife through butter, and then the rocket quickly self destructs.

So how did this rocket survive so long if it had a case breach?

I think what ever was causing this side exhaust was designed to exhaust out of the side, and is a part of the counter measure technique. We aren't so much seeing a rocket failure, but an experiment.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by poet1b

A lot's changed in 20 years. This is, as you said, a test missile. There is no reason to think what happened is not a vent from one side, due to a leak or anything else.

The missile theory is still the best, most supported theory out there.

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 10:47 AM

There is no BEST theory as there is NO...........

Hard Factual Rocket Debris, If as in this threads arguements it was a 3 Stage Rocket. Where did the other stages fall to as the first stage obviously failed?
So there is no Best any theory only theory and all have their merit's.

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by DreamerOracle

And as a corollary there will only be agreement when there is a universally respected authority on the subject. That almost never happens on ATS.

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 11:54 AM

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by poet1b

A lot's changed in 20 years. This is, as you said, a test missile. There is no reason to think what happened is not a vent from one side, due to a leak or anything else.

The missile theory is still the best, most supported theory out there.

Nothing at all. "Out there" there is only a deep and embarassed Silence about the "Norway Spiral".

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by Imagir

No, there is a silence in the same way no one is debating where babies come from. We know, and we don't need to keep trying to point out how wrong people who think storks bring babies how wrong they are.

Whatever gets you through the night, bud. Enough experts have spoken out, if you are that arrogant that you assume to know more than they do, without the benefit of their collective education, then there is simply no helping you.

Let's get our old friend the dictionary to offer its opinion on this sorry situation:

Delusion - (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Delusional - suffering from or characterized by delusions.

Here are those links again, that you refuse to read, believe, and/or understand.

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by davesidious

STOP Offense and personal attak!

Your constant, aggressive and rude way to argue, and with personal attacks, has already catalogued you in the maniac compulsive severeer category. Your fear to see beyond your nose constantly carries to deny the evidences that people much competent have carried on this thread. Your continuous one to deny the evidence sure does not increase the quality of your reasonings that is equal to ZERO, since has not carried no test in support of yours arrogating, disappointing, children's and continues negation.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by Imagir]

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by Imagir

Pointing out the truth is not a personal attack! We are here to deny ignorance, not tip-toe around members who repeatedly flood threads with nonsensical musings phrased as fact. It might hurt, but it's the truth. You, and no other people, have managed to show any evidence at all that what we saw was not the claimed failed Russian launch. Your continued claiming that there has been such evidence, is dishonest. Your passion is not enough to elevate your opinion to the status of fact.

The end of your post seemed to deteriorate into a string of words with no actual meaning, which is rather perplexing.

Please show how all the evidence pointing to the Russian failed missile test is wrong. And I mean actual evidence, not just "I think HAARP/EISCAT can do that, therefore I am right, and you are wrong", which seems to be the mainstay of your argument.

I've given you ample chance to show you are not being delusional. I've asked, repeatedly, for actual evidence that would withstand the rigours of science, but you have failed to make that evidence materialise. I don't create the definitions of words, and I didn't make your evidence disappear. I'm sorry if the words in my previous post offend you, but that really is none of my doing. We are here to deny ignorance, and that's all I've done - to draw attention to blatant ignorance, wherever it rears its head.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by davesidious]

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 04:56 PM
Heresay is not admissable........If a man turns to you and says "I seen a UFO last night" but he has no photo would you believe him?
Yet you flog the missile theory as unquestionable evidence because someone SAYS, "Da comrade it was us". Show me the debris then I'll discount all other feasible explaination. A few pages of how Rockets function isn't the actual meat and bones of the event on the 9/12/09. It is merely heresay. As are all the theories on this thread but difference being, I don't wish to silence anyones theories because it doesn't fit to my own.............I like to read all the theories all have their merits whether far fetched or practical. ATS would be so boring if we didn't see the full spectrum of views and ideas.

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by DreamerOracle

Sure - for the thousandth time, I'll post some links. As we are not going to find wreckage, which is an unreasonable request for confirmation, we have to go with the theory with the most supporting evidence. To say it is not a failed missile, one would have to show how each and every expert asked about this phenomenon is wrong.

Tony Spell's analysis

The "Enterprise Mission" analysis

And, just for the heck of it, some more links:
CSMonitor: A rocket scientist's explanation

New Scientist's take on the spiral

And, finally:

CNN talking to the Norwegian Space Centre's senior adviser, Pal Brekke

So please, go for it. I'd love to see how each and every one of these people is wrong. We'd really learn something then!

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by ilaruum

Those links have been disabled!! That is more proof to the EISCAT anytime information starts getting censored it means the truth is able to be deduced from those images and footage. this may have been brought to the fore already but I just had to share my amazement of tyhe situation and the excellent work going on in this thread S&F

<< 28  29  30    32  33 >>

log in