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

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

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


Still waiting... tick tock tick tock! :-P

There have been two analyses performed since your last post which pretty conclusively show that what we saw originated from the white sea, near where the Russians warned they'd be launching a missile. The altitudes are all consistent with an ICBM. So far there is no smoking gun pointing to that not being the actual explanation.




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Another spiral in Norway on "HALLOWEEN"!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Imagir]

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Imagir]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Haven't had much access to the net recently. Actually.. I knew about that. I looked at google earth and figured out the same thing. I have not spoke about the location of the launch ye though because I was trying to find publicly available evidence showing that these scientists are interested and perform experiments that produce similar results. (this was from last year) "The flight was observable from most of northern Norway, creating a fantastic lightshow as it climed further and further up. Several local news papers reported UFO sightings, meteor sightings and so on. "Most of northern Norway had clear skies during launch, and the exhaust from the upper stages was illuminated by the sun." Mr Bøen explains." www.rocketrange.no... I never said it was launched from land. See.. these rockets are launched pretty much from anywhere.. even russian nuclear subs. I know you response is going to be well that is a stretch. But if you read the last bit of hogland's report there is no way that the spiral could have come from a nuke. Look back at the spiral.. it is coming from 2 points. They also have the capability of launching on short notice. The only thing that is evidence of a russian nuke is that they set a time form Dec. 7 - 15.

......

Ok.. so I was about to post a quote stating that rocketrange.no has the ability to launch from submarines and as of about 2 weeks ago they were saying they could launch rockets from submarines... but they removed any reference to subs. I am not saying that I thought it was launched from a sub.. but I definitely suggested the possibility a long time ago.. you could read through my posts and find it. They seriously removed the lines that stated it. Anyone else read that? I have posted many links to their website here.

I dont have time to keep going.. I have to go. But... Here is one reference to using a Russian nuclear sub for science experiments.. Cosmos 1 Sets Solar Sails for Space - From a Russian submarine
news.softpedia.com...


Sorry gotta go. Cant even reread this..


edit to add real quick:



[edit on 7-1-2010 by danman23]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


So we're back to the conjecture. Brilliant. You've not yet shown why we shouldn't believe the story. Exhaust coming from two points? Yes - we've been saying that all along. There was a malfunctioning third stage. Third stages in ICBMs have liquid fuel buses for maneuvering, so any failure in the third stage, while still attached to the second stage, would produce two exhaust plumes.

You're clutching at straws. You *know* it was something more, but without the evidence. That's irrational behaviour.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


No... the white spiral... you are not understanding. The official story states that a leak occurred on one side which caused it to pinwheel, but if you closely it is actually coming from TWO "leaks" exactly opposite of each other. (the blue spiral is not in this discussion)



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Another really messed up thing that has been bugging me for a while is that the blue exhaust is backwards... as if the spiral came first then the blue exhaust came second and went down. Look at the photos. From the ground up, it goes from skinny to fat.. and if it were launched from the ground it would be fat to skinny.

And then there is this account:

"It stopped mid-air, then began to move in circles. Within seconds a giant spiral had covered the entire sky," reports the UK's Daily Mail. "Then a green-blue beam of light shot out from its centre - lasting for ten to 12 minutes before disappearing completely.""

Like it was splashing down in the White Sea...




The only explanation I could find literally goes back to the sounding rocket experiments...

"Based on the success of the DELTA-1 campaign, the DELTA-2 campaign was conducted. The Japanese S-310-39 rocket,
which was launched northward from the Andoya Rocket Range at 0:15 UT on 26 January 2009, released Trimethyl Aluminum (TMA) along the rocket trajectory during the descent and high-resolution neutral winds were derived from the TMA trails by
observing with ground-based cameras at Tromso and Abisko. Fortunately, the aurora arcs began to break up at 0:25 UT when the
TMA trails still remains in the field of view of the cameras with sufficient intensity. This experiment provides a unique opportunity
to investigate a transition of the wind structure during the typical auroral breakup event. Many ground-based instruments
such as the EISCAT radar, FPIs, and networks of all-sky cameras and magnetometers also provide comprehensive information
on the thermospheric response to auroral energy inputs."
wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp...

Notice that there there was 10 min from the release of the TMA (aluminum) to when they started observing the trails with EISCAT. If you read back Antti said that he didn't turn on the radar until 10 min after the rocket. Which is the perfect time to observe which way and how fast the ionospheric winds were taking the TMA trail. The big white spiral was probably a separate experiment that was ejected out of the back of the rocket when it reach its apogee... which is possible and common when it comes to these sounding rockets.. they carry quite a few experiments. The white spiral experiment was probably to examine the luminescent events that Antti is so interested in.

I looked at all the videos I could find and it is hard to tell if the blue beam is coming before or after the spiral... because most videos start towards the end of the event.

Please if someone is to respond to this post please do not just say "you are grabbing for straws.. blah blah" I am just trying to get to the bottom of this... and I would like other people to help me analyze this not just shoot me down. Really think about this..



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


You may be interested in reading this. It does go against your perspective on this whole thing but may still provide you answers non the less.

It's very comprehensive and well put together. It even addresses EISCAT

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 8-1-2010 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


The blue exhaust is not backwards. We can see it reaching up from the horizon, where it is illuminated in the sunlight (and looks white and smoky, as one would expect from rocket exhaust), and blue when only illuminated by sunlight (due to the aluminium oxide in the exhaust of the solid propellant fuel)

I've already pointed out to you that the image you made is using a photo taken with a very low exposure, meaning the shutter was open for a long time, creating a blur and rendering the image a very poor choice for analysis.

You'll notice the green line juts out from the missile, then turns 90 degrees towards the horizon. That means the exhaust doesn't come from the opposite side, but from the same place at two different angles. The two spirals you see are not created from different sides of the missile, but from the same side.

I admire you for getting to the bottom of it, but I'd like to ask you what your motive is. The official story makes enough sense for every single scientist asked about it. The only way I can see someone not believing in it is if they are so arrogant that they assume to know more than all of those scientists? Or that if they don't know, then it doesn't exist?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Very good! Thank you.. analyzing it now.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by danman23
 



Ok.. I am going to say you are... well, not understanding... seriously. Can someone else please analyze my post.

"The blue exhaust is not backwards. We can see it reaching up from the horizon, where it is illuminated in the sunlight (and looks white and smoky, as one would expect from rocket exhaust), and blue when only illuminated by sunlight (due to the aluminium oxide in the exhaust of the solid propellant fuel)"
Exhaust expands outward with time.. which would indicate that the top of the blue spiral was first and the bottom last.. does that help at all?

"I've already pointed out to you that the image you made is using a photo taken with a very low exposure, meaning the shutter was open for a long time, creating a blur and rendering the image a very poor choice for analysis."
The long exposure does not affect what I am trying t point out.. you just dont understand.

"You'll notice the green line juts out from the missile, then turns 90 degrees towards the horizon. That means the exhaust doesn't come from the opposite side, but from the same place at two different angles. The two spirals you see are not created from different sides of the missile, but from the same side."
That makes no sense.. it makes a "90 degree" turn cause the rocket is spinning. Use visualization to understand that.. or even take 2 strings and start spinning them or something.

Please.. anyone else??? Photoneffect... you seem competent.. even phage would be a help here.. haha.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


1. If the exhaust is being exhausted at the same speed at the same angle, yes. But you don't know that it is. A rocket incorrectly igniting its third stage will of course seriously affect the motion of the rocket.

2. I saw what you're trying to point out, and I answered you. The two spirals are clearly not from opposite sides of the rocket, but from the same side, at slightly different angles. Your diagram has the second spiral making a 90 degree turn for no apparent reason (which exhaust plumes don't do). If you'd actually traced it, you'd see both spirals occur from approximately the same place. The exposure length of that photo blurs the spirals making it harder to see, which was my point about the exposure.

3. No, the 90 degree turn is because your lines leave the rocket then, for no apparent reason, change the angular momentum of the exhaust they are supposed to be illustrating, which is physically impossible. That means you've either invented a new law of motion, or you're wrong. Again, the poor choice of photo doesn't help, as the spirals are so blurred at the point of touching the missile, it's impossible to see where one starts and the other ends.

So no, I answered all your questions, you just don't want to hear the answers as they point to you not understanding what you're seeing, and jumping to rather bizarre explanations.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Please, someone else take a look all of this.. jeeeeeezzz



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


I did. You are clearly misunderstanding what you're seeing, and using dodgy data and a lack of knowledge on the subject to come to your own conclusions.

It doesn't matter what anyone says to you - you are convinced you're right. This has become a religion for you, it seems.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


No.. look.. here is a parabolic spiral

Like we see form the norway spiral.

Here is an example of a regular spiral...



Do you see the difference?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by danman23
 


I did. You are clearly misunderstanding what you're seeing, and using dodgy data and a lack of knowledge on the subject to come to your own conclusions.

It doesn't matter what anyone says to you - you are convinced you're right. This has become a religion for you, it seems.


Point out the "dodgy data" please.

I am convinced i am right?? I think there is more to it, based on a month of research on the topic. I am a rational person, yet.. there are many things unanswered... for some reason you find it important to post here and change the conversation to sound like I am some religious freak or something. I am just researching and posting questions and observations.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


"1. If the exhaust is being exhausted at the same speed at the same angle, yes. But you don't know that it is. A rocket incorrectly igniting its third stage will of course seriously affect the motion of the rocket."

I believe they were saying the failure that occurred in the third stage was suffering to the white spiral.. which would mean that your argument that the blue spiral got bigger cause it went out of control be cause of a third stage failure would not work.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by danman23]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Star and Flag for taking the time and effort to complie all this info, great job dude!
My brother thinks as well that it's HAARP. And it makes me also wonder what the relationship truly is between Russia and the U.S.

They could also very well have made a projection image of a rocket up there as well. Just as a excuse to say it was actually a rocket, that spun out of control. (Ding!! That rang some bells.)

I think this is going the same way as 9/11 isn't it?

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Shrukin89]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


It would work if the two stages were fused together, which could indeed happen with a failure of the third stage. That would mean the second stage, which is producing the blue spiral, is being moved around by the force of the white exhaust. We can see that the blue spiral is pointing directly to where the white spiral is emanating from, indicating that the two stages are indeed fused together. For your claim to be true it would mean that a failing third stage would not affect the second stage it is attached to, which I'm sure you'll agree is rather preposterous.

reply to post by Shrukin89
 


HAARP is on the other side of the world, and has nowhere near the required power to create such a phenomenon, and definitely couldn't create a phenomenon that stretches from the horizon upwards to past the ionosphere into space. You, and your brother, seem rather ill-informed about HAARP. There is no technology that can create such a projection.

You also don't seem to have a reason why, just a feeling that you are being lied to. That is paranoia.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


You are brutal... haha.... Shrukin89 just jumped in the convo.. be nice!!



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Since you have claimed your self to know everything.. can you explain to me why the Blue exhaust goes from small to fat as if we were witnessing the decent of a rocket instead of the ascent?





new topics
top topics
 
182
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join