Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

TEQUILAsunrise - AKA Norway Spiral - Proof it was a scientific experiment.

page: 31
182
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


I understand "denying ignorance" but what you are doing is just blindly saying that "there is no proof so it must be wrong", but there is... I am more focusing on learning and demonstrating that it is possible and is actually one of the scientists goals... meaning that they do it on purpose all the time. Did you see all the written and photo evidence of similar luminescent spiral clouds and artificial auroras I presented?


[edit on 3-1-2010 by danman23]




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


I've seen everything posted here. You're making a classic mistake - you're seeing evidence of one phenomenon, then trying to shoe-horn in why a second phenomenon must be created by the same means, without any evidence suggesting it is so.

The Russian missile explanation, while unpopular on ATS, is wildly popular among the people who know most about rocket science, astronomy, and physics. It's only armchair scientists on ATS and other conspiracy-based websites that seem to not understand the overwhelming evidence for it being a Russian missile test.

So, first things first - show how it could not have been a Russian missile test, as that is the only theory on the subject. Your 'theory' isn't a theory at all, in a scientific sense, but a hypothesis.

Your effort is admirable, your lack of critical thinking is not.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


Yes, I see what you're trying to show, but I think you might be grasping at straws here.

There's absolutely no record of Russia's involvement with EISCAT and their scientific studies of the atmosphere. While I'm open to the idea that Russia could very well join that consortium sometime in the future, I'm fairly certain that it won't be kept a secret.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by danman23
 



So, first things first - show how it could not have been a Russian missile test, as that is the only theory on the subject. Your 'theory' isn't a theory at all, in a scientific sense, but a hypothesis.

Your effort is admirable, your lack of critical thinking is not.


If you can show 1, just 1 single missfired rocket that looks even remotely simular to the Norway one, then I'd be willing to concede that it was a rocket. But I've not seen a single video, picture or account, that resembles what happened in Norway. Not one. Yes, there are videos of rockets spiralling, but they look absolutly nothing like the Norway spiral. They look just like rockets spiralling out of control, the Norway one looks like something from a freaking SciFi movie. I can say, that I am 100% sure that this was no ordinary rocket. If it was, there'd be plenty of examples to prove that this happens all the time.

your last line can also refer to the line of thinking you've taken.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by danman23
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

I actually "proposed the notion" of a rocket being involved from the beginning, not accepted. You have not read all of my posts either. Its ok though.


From your last poston page 29
 


You said: Now, if you have been following my posts you will have noticed that I have said from the beginning that I think that a sounding rocket may have been involved.. I thought this because one of the two guys involved in the TEQUILAsunrise experiment was involved in sounding rockets and I noticed the smoke trail coming up in the photos
emphasis mine

Which is why I said : judging from your latest posts here, you seem to have accepted this notion that a rocket was certainly shot that day. You're a rational human being and can clearly see from all the photographs that this is the case...

Not to mention your entire post is all about the use of sounding rockets to create auroras... so I guess you can see why to me, you seemed to have accepted the notion of a rocket ... (which would be correct btw)

And please forgive me for not reading all of your posts, I've read some of this thread but not all of it. Quite honestly, having been through all of these spiral threads and seeing "It's not a bloody rocket!!!" for the upteenth time without any supporting evidence as to why... well I'm sure you can understand...



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


Acidtastic,


You're going to have to do better than that man.

Every rocket launch is different, as is every failure that may occur given the weather conditions and altitudes at the time of occurrence. You do understand that right?

There have been plenty of photos and videos that show very similar spiral effects, exhaust plumes and even the blue haze... Now while not exact to the norway event, it's enough for a rational logical human being to look at and say, you know what, that probably was a rocket...

The onus is on you to provide solid evidence as to why the generally accepted explanation is wrong. Opinions based on ignorance don't count as solid evidence either...

Your desire to cling on to the very weak stance of, "well none of the pictures and videos of the other spirals look anything like the one in Norway", is only serving to bog you down into the quagmire of ignorance that has pervaded this topic.

Good luck out there.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


Acidtastic,


You're going to have to do better than that man.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by PhotonEffect]


No offence, but Acid is right on the money. I feel the rocket claim is really the theory grabbing for straws. I find it most disturbing to read things like "it looks kind of like a previous rocket launch so that's what it is"

WRONG!!! I don't care if I'm the only human that can see that was not like anything we have EVER seen on this earth. (lucky for me I'm not the only one with reasoning eyes) I have put up a few un answered problems w/ rocket theory, that....are problems.


Scale and perfection boys....scale and perfection.

The uber kicker is no one really knows what it was.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


There are many things pointing to a science experiment instead of a Russian rocket. Here is just one... Eye witness reports state that the blue beam rose up from the sky... stopped mid air and then the spiral started to grow from one spot. That follows the exact same way they perform the experiments on the atmosphere. They shoot a sounding rocket and let it reach its apogee and then shoot out aluminum or other metals or gasses... while it spins.

"In case of S-310, it is spun positively in the atmosphere to overcome resonance, and thus avoids continued resonance problems. It also corrects attitude disturbance by aerodynamic damping. The spin is provided by twisted tail fins which cause 2.8 Hz spin to the body.

The thrust programming is designed to peak in the early stage, and to keep the thrust level low in the latter half of burning time, when aerodynamic forces increase dramatically."

"In the payload bay is a yo-yo despinner system, which is actuated at 50 sec. after lift-off, to reduce the spin to 1 Hz during the observation period."

I dont have enough time to actually try to determine with out a doubt but it looks as if the spiral is spinning at 1 Hz.

Another thing.. the spiral is being formed from TWO "holes" as I pointed out earlier. All theories based on the Russian Missile say that fuel leaked out of one side.

There are a bunch more things.. but alas, I have to get some work done.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by danman23]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Ya, I understand... it's all good.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Originally posted by SLaPPiE

No offence, but Acid is right on the money. I feel the rocket claim is really the theory grabbing for straws. I find it most disturbing to read things like "it looks kind of like a previous rocket launch so that's what it is"


None taken Slap- it sure looks like we'll only be agreeing to disagree here. I for one don't think Acid is right on the money, nor any other posters who align with his/her line of reasoning without as much as an attempt at critical thinking, while choosing to also disregard blatant evidence of a rocket launch

Oh, what evidence would that be you might be asking? Well, forget that the Russians have admitted to it after they warned of the launch before it took place, cuz I know you all don't care about that sort of evidence...

Me, I like pictures and videos, as do a lot of people... what I see is a nice blue corkscrew spiral that becomes part of what appears to be a larger more dramatic hypnotic looking spiral. And you know what I also see?, is out on the horizon an exhaust plume that is not only typical of every missile launch but also looks exactly like many other missile exhaust plumes I've seen and I'm sure by now you've seen. Not just "kinda looks like", but exactly...

The best part, is that the exhaust plume leads into the blue corkscrew which then connects to the larger spiral... so to me it's reasonable to conclude that all these pieces are part of the same event.. do you follow?- is that so irrational? I'd be curious to hear your take on what you think the exhaust plume is... and ya better not say photoshop!

But seriously, don't argue with me over this, argue with the pictures.


WRONG!!! I don't care if I'm the only human that can see that was not like anything we have EVER seen on this earth. (lucky for me I'm not the only one with reasoning eyes) I have put up a few un answered problems w/ rocket theory, that....are problems.


Reasoning eyes? You mean like these



Scale and perfection boys....scale and perfection.


I assume this is the crux of your argument. What are you basing this on, just out of curiosity? Some grainy videos and overexposed pictures?


The uber kicker is no one really knows what it was.


Er, I think we do.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


That's fine! As long as you admit that you're being irrational, using the ol' "if I can't imagine it then it can't be real" defence. The rocket misfired in space, not in the atmosphere, which is where your mental library of rocket failures more than likely occurred. Newton's laws of motion show how a spiral would be perfectly feasible, if not probable, for a rocket failing out of the atmosphere. We're talking about a new type of rocket. I guess when the Challenger blew up, that couldn't have been a Space Shuttle blowing up, as we'd not seen one of those explode before. See how your logic works? If we all used your logic to come to terms with the world, we'd have answers for nothing, as things have to happen for a first time. If all of humanity adopted your outlook on the world, we'd still be living in caves scared of the sun.

reply to post by SLaPPiE
 


It's only clutching at straws if you don't understand what happens to a rocket venting exhaust from two different points in a vacuum. Which clearly you don't. Again, just because we've not seen exactly that same thing before doesn't mean we can't say what it most likely was. My point about Space Shuttles above applies equally to your strange notion of logic.

reply to post by danman23
 


Right. A rocket moving away from observers would appear to stop. Wouldn't it? Of course it would. Also, you'd not even be able to see a rocket at that distance, only its exhaust. The rest of your post is conjecture. The bit about two holes is perfectly congruent with what we saw - the second stage producing the blue exhaust, and the failed third stage producing the white exhaust. Two holes, one failure.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
This is really interesting.. I found a paper written about the REXUS 3 sounding rocket campaign in 2006

Here are some of the people/organizations that were involved..
Notice Russia and Markus Rapp (one of the guys from the TEQUILAsunrise experiments)

World Data Center
Academy of Science of the USSR
Soviet Geophysical Committee
Melodezhnaya 3
RU-Moscow B-296
Russia

World Data Center for
Rockets and Satellites
Goddard Space Flight Center
Mail Code 633
Greenbelt MD 20771
USA

Leibniz Institute of Atmospheric Physics Dr Markus Rapp
at the University of Rostock
Schlossstr. 6
DE-18225 Kühlungsborn
Germany

University of Oslo Mr. F. Jarle
Department of physics
Fysisk institutt
Postboks 1048 Blindern
0316 Oslo
Norway

www.rex4bex5.spelaroll.se...

This basically shows cooperation between Russia, Germany (Markus Rapp), United States and Norway in regards to Sounding Rocket experiments. Just pointing it out.

Here is an article that explains Russia being involved in global partnerships to research the earth, including the ionosphere:

gcras.ru...

Here is a quote:
"The major goals of IGC AS USSR was planning and coordinating complex geophysical researches conducted in international projects and programs and many-sided scientific approach to objects under studies. One more important goal was further development of the World Data Centers (WDC) that were formed during IGY and went on functioning in IGC.

The Earth is a complex space body, which has a number of spheres: the core, the mantle, the crust, biosphere, atmosphere, ionosphere, radiation belts and others. Generally the Earth is a complex dynamic system in which processes on various time and space scales go on. Joint efforts of researchers in different fields and of many countries of the world are required to study the Earth as a whole and the processes going on in it Integrating soviet geophysics and related earth sciences into these studies became the most important function of IGC."



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


Interesting. Unless you can explicitly tie it to what we saw in Norway, though, it's rather off-topic



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious

reply to post by danman23
 


Right. A rocket moving away from observers would appear to stop. Wouldn't it? Of course it would. Also, you'd not even be able to see a rocket at that distance, only its exhaust. The rest of your post is conjecture. The bit about two holes is perfectly congruent with what we saw - the second stage producing the blue exhaust, and the failed third stage producing the white exhaust. Two holes, one failure.


No no... It reached its APOGEE.. a point when a rocket hits the height of its trajectory.. like when you throw a ball up in the air.. it stops and comes back down. See people saw the blue trail rise up.. then it stopped and started dispersing this spiral. Which is exactly how these sounding rockets are performed.

As for the holes part.. you did not understand me and must have missed my post on page 29:

"

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by KKinsane2009


As Phage said, read the posts. It's all been covered. A brief recap of the events of the Norway spiral:


1. Russia warned shipping in the White Sea of an impending missile test
2. On the same day the warning was for, a column of smoke was seen, stretching from the horizon to well above the atmosphere. Still in sunlight, this plume's aluminium oxide component (which is common in missile exhaust) shone blue. As the missile started its third stage separation, a fuel leak occurred, causing the missile to 'pin wheel', spewing fuel out of one side. Because of the sheer scale of the forces involved, and the lack of atmosphere, the spiral looked pretty perfect from Earth.
3. People saw the spiral, and most (including missile experts, astronomers, and scientists), said "Hey - that looks neat. That Russian missile test must have failed. Again."
4. People who didn't fall under the first group started bashing their fists on their keyboards on ATS screaming about HAARP, EISCAT, grey aliens, because they assumed if they don't know what something is, someone else telling them what it is must be disinfo agents from the government, as how dare they be wrong. Even though these people have no evidence.
5. Large lists of evidence in support of the missile test, including admissions from the Russian government and analysis by real scientists, are posted to ATS.
6. Go to 4.


"spewing fuel out of one side." you say? Everyone says? Look closely at the photos.

Heres one... i.dailymail.co.uk...

Notice the "FUEL" is coming from TWO "breaks" exactly opposite of each other. What are the chances of that happening? is it even possible that 2 pressure leaks happened simultaneously at the exact opposite sides of the "russian rocket" .. I don't think so.. This is just something that I had noticed and immediately and thought was pretty obvious.. Here is an image I made to explain it further...
"





[edit on 5-1-2010 by danman23]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by danman23
 


Interesting. Unless you can explicitly tie it to what we saw in Norway, though, it's rather off-topic


Yes, it is interesting. The only reason for presenting that was to show that Markus Rapp works on Sounding Rockets.. and has worked with the Russians in the past.
The connection is that Antti Kero / Markus Rapp were the ones that scheduled the TEQUILAsunrise experiment. The beginning of the experiment coincides with the spiral. Antti Kero is mostly involved in experiments involving different arrays, but Markus Rapp's group is involved in sounding rockets. Another thing is that Antti is interested in LUMINESCENT EVENTS and WEATHER MODIFICATION:
(Im pointing weather modification out because it is brought up in the same paragraph and that people have been saying for years that these arrays cannot modify the weather.. buttt.... it is blatantly talked about here.)

"According to some models, the ozone change due to this process
is capable of changing the atmospheric circulation and causing significant anomalies in ground temperatures [Rozanov et al., 2005]. Most recently, these anomalies are verified by temperature records [SeppÄalÄa et al., 2008]. The climate predictions by the IPCC [2007] are based on models which ignore the poorly known solar particle forcing. This might not be justified in the future. Besides the solar particle input, there is also a variety of other poorly understood phenomena, such as transient luminous events [Enell et al., 2008a] and meteoric forcing on the atmosphere [Gabrielli et al., 2004], which might be important { or just interesting"

I originally posted that in the second post of this thread.

Here is some quick info on Markus again:

"Prof. Dr. Markus Rapp
Head of Department
Dept. Radars and Sounding Rockets
Leibniz-Institute of Atmospheric Physics
University of Rostock
Kuehlungsborn, Germany

"From January 2008, the department has also been hosting activities utilizing sounding rockets for high resolution measurements of turbulence and aerosol parameters. Measurements with sounding rockets provide the only means by which corresponding high resolution measurements (spatial resolution ~ centimeters) in the middle atmosphere are feasible."




[edit on 5-1-2010 by danman23]

[edit on 5-1-2010 by danman23]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


No, at it's apogee the rocket wouldn't appear to stop for anyone, unless you were directly behind the rocket during apogee. Clearly if you were standing beneath a rocket as it reached apogee overhead, it wouldn't appear to stop, but in fact be travelling at its fastest relative speed. We can see that the path of this missile wasn't elliptical, as sounding rockets' orbits are (as they want the rocket to land somewhere near it was launched, and not thousands of miles away as the rocket we saw from Norway did), as the rocket appeared from over the horizon, then travelled a great distance over the sky.

That linked photo was taken with a massively long exposure. Trying to use that to measure anything is pointless. You can see from this image shows the asymmetrical nature of the spiral.

OK, the sounding rockets snippet you posted talks about luminous events, great. That doesn't mean it's describing what we saw. Also, heating the ground? This phenomenon was clearly miles and miles away from the ground.

So we have two choices:

1. The Russian explanation, which involves naval teletext warnings, a rocket appearing to launch from the white sea (where they said it would), travelling into space, and failing.

2. A group of scientists coerced the Russian government into saying Russia was going to launch a missile, which Russia secretly knew was going to fail, for no apparent reason.

Hmm. Choices, choices.

I appreciate all the research you're doing, but as with so many conspiracy theories discussed on this site, you've found some pieces of a puzzle you think exists, but you can't tie them together in the way you want to. So far the Bulava explanation makes the most sense, as it doesn't rely on massive conspiracies by people who have no reason to conspire. Your idea, while very interesting, is missing more than half its pieces, and so far you have failed to tie anything together. Markus Rapp used sounding rockets? So what! That's circumstantial evidence at best.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Oh my goodness... are you serious.. I'll reply soon.. busy at the moment.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I think you all should have a look at this if you haven't been following it yet...

It's from Hoeglands site, but offers a compelling case for showing how a russian bulava could've originated from the white sea and still be seen from norway, using analysis of video and the now so well known photo of the spiral coming from behind that mountain...

Just food for thought

www.enterprisemission.com...

edit to add- of course his stance is that this is all circumstantial evidence...

[edit on 5-1-2010 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


Yes I'm serious. You are connecting dots that aren't necessarily there. The failed Russian missile theory has all the dots - your weird ever-changing theory doesn't.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


That's a fantastic read - thanks for posting it here! Excellent stuff!

It most likely won't be enough to appease any of the "ZOMG! Sounding rockets!!!!!11eleven" crowd, but then I doubt anything would.





new topics

top topics



 
182
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join