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: 9
286
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


It wasn't dense enough. The denser particles are that reflect light the better you can see them. Ever been to a dusty attic for example? A lot of dust and you can see it hovering in the air.

Edit: Actually this isn't a very good example but I hope you get the idea.


[edit on 14/12/2009 by DGFenrir]




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Thank you for your effort and time.... We dont get too many reasonable posts here on ATS anymore, mostly just ridiculous claims and religious banter. So again i thank you for your time and effort into making an amazing post. S&F



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Just a passing thought...

EISCAT and HAARP are supposedly used to measure disturbances in the ionosphere and magnetosphere, right?

Maybe this is a bit of a stretch, but what if these facilities have a more sinister purpose and are being used to deliberately punch holes in the Ozone layer? - to catalyse climate change deliberately...



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

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


If the sun was lighting it, why did it fade out all of a sudden?

Makes no sense.


It didn't fade out.

The reflective surface (exhaust) was blown away from the ejection site (the end of the rocket). The only thing that changed was the lack of exhaust, which caused what appears to be a 'black hole' in the center. Everything else was dissipation of the reflective surface (exhaust).



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusBob
 


I doubt it. The global warming is a natural thing. The whole solar system is supposedly warming right now. Or it has started to cool down?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Excellent work!!! I am new to ATS. I have been reading posts here for a few months and there seems to be a higher caliber of postings here. The debunkers arguments seemed to be very weak and well orchestrated, curious??

So there you have it, collusion on an international scale. If you accept that as a fact then wouldn't you naturally be concerned about a device using that much power to cause those type of atmospheric effects??? To not ask questions and dig and probe is irresponsible which leads to the next level of collusion----"The Press". Once we lose them (which is got to be bloddy obvious to even the most casual of observers) we become the "little people" , the "unworthy", the "cattle". Don't worry whats going on behind the curtain.

Sorry, that dog don't hunt anymore!!!

To all the truth seekers, www.projectcamelot.org, its time to awaken.

***** David Wilcock in particular--------Brilliant analysis of what is probable



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I live in Sweden and I can tell you that there is ZERO eye witnesses here and nothing in the papers about this thing except the reports about the Norway event.

I see Hank McCoy (and DGFenrir) work hard in this thread as well, trying to convince people. They are in all these threads. Are you guys assigned to threads like these? All you do is hang out here, all day long, trying to convince people. If you are not disinfo agents I would be surprised.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 


We are only offering reasonable explanations.
Did you actually understand any of the math done here? I doubt it.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

I live in Sweden and I can tell you that there is ZERO eye witnesses here and nothing in the papers about this thing except the reports about the Norway event.

I see Hank McCoy (and DGFenrir) work hard in this thread as well, trying to convince people. They are in all these threads. Are you guys assigned to threads like these? All you do is hang out here, all day long, trying to convince people. If you are not disinfo agents I would be surprised.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by Copernicus]


I've already stated that I am a Paid Governmental Debunker. Don't know how else to say it.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusBob
Just a passing thought...

EISCAT and HAARP are supposedly used to measure disturbances in the ionosphere and magnetosphere, right?

Maybe this is a bit of a stretch, but what if these facilities have a more sinister purpose and are being used to deliberately punch holes in the Ozone layer? - to catalyse climate change deliberately...



I believe it is more than possible. We are experiencing low levels of sun spots and scientists expect lower future sun spots. Assuming one believes a connection between sun spots and ice ages, why wouldn't they do it.

solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by Copernicus
 


We are only offering reasonable explanations.
Did you actually understand any of the math done here? I doubt it.


"Reasonable explanations"....??


This is a very debatable phrase if you (all of you) still insisted on the illogical theory of the Russian missile.


The Norway' Spyral is "Something else,... BUT NOT A RUSSIAN MISSILE"!



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir


"Reasonable explanations"....??


This is a very debatable phrase if you (all of you) still insisted on the illogical theory of the Russian missile.


The Norway' Spyral is "Something else,... BUT NOT A RUSSIAN MISSILE"!


Blow up a balloon and let it go.

As the balloon gets smaller and the force of the elastic pushes more and more air out of the end, it begins to spiral before dropping.

Is it illogical for a balloon to act this way?

Why would it be illogical for a rocket using the same principles to behave this way?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by Copernicus
 


We are only offering reasonable explanations.
Did you actually understand any of the math done here? I doubt it.


"Reasonable explanations"....??


This is a very debatable phrase if you (all of you) still insisted on the illogical theory of the Russian missile.


The Norway' Spyral is "Something else,... BUT NOT A RUSSIAN MISSILE"!


What is so illogical in that theory?


Suggest a better one.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 


Thanks for keeping up the fight on this one. The sheer amount of lunacy people are spewing when there is such great evidence for this being just another failed Russian missile test is staggering. Now we have HAARP being mentioned? It's like these folks want to write their own adventure book and be part of it, all without any evidence.

Russia launched a missile from a submarine. The missile, like the few before it, failed. Its propellant caused it to spiral, as Newton's formulae demonstrate. That's it. How anyone can start to concoct some story of massive international skullduggery from that is beyond me. It certainly isn't critical thinking.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 


Sorry, but I must repeat...

YOU SIMPLY HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

My question is: why you (all of you) insist and sometime in so rude manners?

Hmmmm............. yes I've an idea for this common behaviour.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
It certainly isn't critical thinking.


In my experience, ATS has never been very big on Critical Thinking.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


We've explained everything to the details. You are the one who has no idea what he's talking about. Just look at your threads. Random nonsense.


What is so illogical in our explanations?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imagir
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 


Sorry, but I must repeat...

YOU SIMPLY HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

My question is: why you (all of you) insist and sometime in so rude manners?

Hmmmm............. yes I've an idea for this common behaviour.



Oh, yes, your standby reply for when you don't have an answer.. "Hank you dont know what you are talking about!"

Hank provided you with an experiment that you can try on your own. If you decide not to try it and instead keep your head buried in the sand, that is your own problem, but don't blame me for your ignorance.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
What if...

There was a mutany on the russian sub that was supposed to have launched the missile at the west. Due to problems in its design of the guidance system or a bunch of loony war wacky end of the world fanatics, the missile with its 10 nuclear warheads was launched. The russian gov't doesn't want anyone to know that one of there most advanced subs was comprimised by said fanatics, and are trying to save face.

What if..

Norway doesn't want to acknowlege to the russian gov't that they have an operational ground based weapon system I.E. Laser, maser or some other kind of energy weapon system that actually works. And that it did work cause the resulting detonation was the energy based weapon blowing up the missile and seting off all 10 nukes. Would that not give the effect of the strange circluar formation..

what if..

Your right 100%...
And it was Norway doing a test of its new system and something went wrong...

Or something went right and they opened a vortexx to some other place. Why would someone doe this. I could give you a bunch of reasons. Course most would put me in the catagory of wacko or loon. But then this is ATS. Where even the most out landish idea could be plusible..

What if..

hmmmm..

S&F to you OP. You've done a good job at showing the facts.




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DraconianKing
You haven't proved anything, just glancing I see a few errors and poor assumptions. It was a malfunctioning rocket, didn't you watch the videos or read the conclusive scientific reviews of the incident? The physics behind this phenomenon is so basic I could explain it to a chimp, yet you humans find it mind boggling because "It looks pretty like a wormhole, yup that's what it is!"


edit to remove

[edit on 14-12-2009 by liveandletlive]



new topics

top topics



 
286
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join