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.

 

Two researchers attribute Norway light to HAARP, anti-ET space-based weapon of mass destruction

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Since Wilcox and Hoagland both say it isn't a failed rocket then it MUST BE a failed rocket on the simple principle that neither of these guys have their heads tuned into reality on planet Earth. Or rather they are tuned into what their faux-reality cottage industry fans want to hear. Never mind the Russian governments admission and all of the photographic and computer simulation evidence that points to a rocket. All we need to know is that Wilcox and Hoagland think its not. For further confirmation all we need is for Dan Burisch (who has changed his name back to Cain now) to announce that it was time traveling aliens from a different time track come back to pick up fresh copies of L. Ron Hubbard novels or something.

Where is Diogenes when you need him?




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
. . .

It was a missile failure that caused the spiral of particles in the upper atmosphere, it is obvious, just from the pictures and video. You don't need anyone else to tell you this.


It is not obvious, hence people are questioning it.

Duh. If there is confusion, it is not obvious



Originally posted by ALLis0NE
. . .

I know the truth about the Norway Spiral, so I am spreading the truth.

. . .


[edit on 16-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]


Were you there at the "missile launching?"

If not, you know nothing except speculation . . . which is what everyone else knows.

Get over yourself.

[edit on 12/16/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by LightWonder
 


I'm not an disinfo spreader, I am a truth spreader.

I know the truth about the Norway Spiral, so I am spreading the truth.

What I HATE are people like you that just complain about peoples actions when you don't know jack s*** about them. Don't get hurt feelings because I am crushing your fake reality with truth.



[edit on 16-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]


I tell you what whoever fired that 'missile' must be pretty cross eyed ! That thing went 90 deg off bleedin course ! Cudda took somebody's eye out ! Rocket my ars3 !

[edit on 013131p://12America/Chicago16 by ProRipp]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by LightWonder
 



What I HATE are people like you that just complain about peoples actions when you don't know jack s*** about them. Don't get hurt feelings because I am crushing your fake reality with truth.



[edit on 16-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]


Ya know, Iv'e read quite a few of your posts, and many times you are capable of posting sound, good arguments with good researching skills..With that said, lately all I see from you is posts like this one above.

Your attitude stinks.


Really, after reading most of your recent posts here on ATS I could care less what field of research you are in or your "qualifications" etc etc etc.. The thing that people don't care to listen to is your constant arrogance and "I'm better and smarter and cooler than you whaaaa!" griping. It's a hard read when your nose is constantly stuck in the air. I think most members skeptic or believers (of whatever) would much rather stick to reading the skeptical posts of those such as Phage who very rarely act like "better than thou" idiots, and don't give personal insults as "proof" of their claims.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Wookiep]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
posted this in response to someone on another Norway thread. i think it might bear re-posting on this one.


In regards to your post, it would seem that the evidence quite often does point to what you might think is a mundane explanation. I guess it depends on a persons goal, to find the most "alternative" explanation, or to find an explanation that fits the facts in evidence.
A lot of people here have knee jerk reactions to all kinds of events. They reject the "official story" out of hand as well as any "MSM" news reports under the assumption that everything "they" say is a lie. That's not very objective now is it?
With ANY given event, there is a race here to see who can come up with the conspiracy angle, who can post first getting stars and flags. Very often logic is ignored to promote the conspiracy fever. This serves nothing, and only indicates ATS is a game to many posters and hardly indicates open minds and careful consideration, or any real interest in finding out the truth about anything.
I'll end by saying two things.
First, as I often say, just because all things may be possible, it doesn't mean all things are likely.
Second, you know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
It is not obvious, hence people are questioning it.

Duh. If there is confusion, it is not obvious


It IS obvious. The only people it isn't obvious to are people who lack the knowledge and understanding of such events.

Believe it or not there are people in this world that have more knowledge than you, and can see from the video of the event alone what is happening.

This isn't me trying to be "better than anyone"... I am just saying, people have more knowledge in certain areas. The only people who don't think the event was a failed missile are the people who lack knowledge. That is it.



[edit on 16-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
I tell you what whoever fired that 'missile' must be pretty cross eyed ! That thing went 90 deg off bleedin course ! Cudda took somebody's eye out ! Rocket my ars3 !


It did NOT go 90 degrees off course. There is such thing called the coriolis effect which is causd by the rotation of the Earth. When you aim for a target you aim where the target will be by the time the missile gets there, you don't aim directly at it.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. If they shot directly at a target in a straight line, the Earth would move under the missile and the target will move, and the missile will have to correct it's path (not straight line) and lose fuel. So that is why they aim the missile where the target is going to be, and not where it is, to save fuel and to get more range out of their missile.

Also, every single image from Norway was taken while looking East. They were all looking at an object that was far away near the White Sea. It was NOT "over Norway", it was just visible from Norway. All the images you see show a right to left trail of particles. Since the images are facing East, and the trail goes slightly right to left, that means they shot the rocket from the White Sea towards the North-East. Because of that, shortly after the missile was launched the Coriolis Effect caused Norway to move closer and closer to the back of the missile because the Earth rotates East.

It's simple knowledge like that which people lack.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
Your attitude stinks.



So you totally ignored the attitude that LightWorker gave me? You know, I always start with a good attitude until someone gives me attitude, then I give it back. Eye for an eye. I NEVER do it first. The only reason I had attitude is because LightWorker gave me attitude... so, thanks for ignoring LightWorker and only focusing on me.

Your post stinks. Now YOU are giving ME attitude. You should expect it back. You see how it works now?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I noticed that article a few days ago and considered posting it. I looked into the two "researchers" and decided that they were pretty biased. Here's the first paragraph on Hoagland's wikipedia page -



Richard C. Hoagland (born April 25, 1945) is an American author and a proponent of various conspiracy theories about NASA, lost alien civilizations on the moon and on Mars and other related topics. Claims from his personal biography[1] and publication[2] include having been curator for a science museum in Springfield Massachusetts at age 19 in the mid-60s.[3] Hoagland does not have any scientific training


The rest of the article


Looking up Wilcock gave similar results. I'm not putting the HAARP theory down at all - but just in the article referring to HAARP as "an exotic weapons system that is part of the weaponization of space, using 'scalar wave interferometry'," -- made me feel like the article was a little too one-sided. And the Wiki statement about Hoagland having no scientific training makes me think that perhaps he should back his theories up with data provided by trained scientists instead of talking like he is one.


I think it's an interesting theory, but without any sort of data or real proof to back up his claims aside from quoting a "confidential source", I have to take what he says with a grain of salt, so to speak.


[edit on 16-12-2009 by sowerby]


I also just wanted to add that becoming upset over the attitude of others and things of the like is, in my opinion, a waste of energy. I theorize that two strong minds with opposing opinions could probably bring a lot of good, solid research and discovery to the topic when working together. Fusion does tend to make things all the more powerful, doesn't it? And the left hand can do a lot more when it has the right hand helping it and stuff.


[edit on 16-12-2009 by sowerby]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
i thoght it was something similar to that, no one ever said waht was over that hill...



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


So you disregard tauristercus' theory in his thread ? He went into the research of the incident quite thoroughly i thought, and to me it seemed the most plausible theory ! Although having read your theory I can see where your comin from !



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


So you disregard tauristercus' theory in his thread ? He went into the research of the incident quite thoroughly i thought, and to me it seemed the most plausible theory ! Although having read your theory I can see where your comin from !


reply to post by ProRipp
 


Yes I do disregard his theory, because he made many mistakes in this calculations, and assumptions.

He did not account for the Coriolis effect.

Also he states the missile had to of gone 90 off course when we have pictures of the actual missile showing it going Northeast where it was aimed. We have comments from the photographers stating they were facing East which is toward the White Sea, and the images show a trail going right to left which indicate a Northeast direction.

Why would tauristercus state the missile traveled West towards Norway, when the pictures were taken pointing East and shows a right to left trail which would be Northeast and not West?

His calculations are wrong, and he ignored image data and photographer/witness account.

There are too many flaws in his topic and it still got 200+ flags. This shows the majority mindset of people on ATS. They are more interested in conspiracy, not truth.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Ha!! I KNEW it! I posted that first day I too believed it was HAARP generated!



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
It IS obvious. The only people it isn't obvious to are people who lack the knowledge and understanding of such events.

Believe it or not there are people in this world that have more knowledge than you, and can see from the video of the event alone what is happening.

This isn't me trying to be "better than anyone"... I am just saying, people have more knowledge in certain areas. The only people who don't think the event was a failed missile are the people who lack knowledge. That is it.



Well guess what.

I also have knowledge and great understanding of certain aspects of physics, in particular electronics and thermodynamics.


Believe it or not, you aren't the only person with a brain, and your argument here is actually a logical fallacy based on nothing but arrogance. If you were really such an expert and your case was so strong, you would be able to objectively demonstrate it and leave no doubt.

This is me telling you that you ARE no better than anyone else here. And like I said, if you really had such knowledge, you would be able to apply it like real scientists when any of them actually prove something. The people who keep asserting this is a rocket failure with nothing but their opinions and big egos to justify it are just going to turn blue in the face before they can convince anyone based on those things alone.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Nice attempt but it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

Nothing I said was a logical fallacy, actually, it seems like you just wanted to use that term to sound intelligent. Everything I said was 100% accurate, and I have scientifically proven that it was a missile in many other threads. I even have a simulation using real physics to express how the spiral was made. The simulation wasn't made by me, but since I am also a 3D modeler and animator I can easily recreate the particle effects using real time physics in 3D Studio Max to further prove my case.

What you lack knowledge of is aeronautics, and because of that you don't understand how a missile with forward momentum would fly in an off axis trajectory like a corkscrew when it's 3rd stage exhaust nozzle is bent sideways causing the missile to create a spiral effect with its exhaust gases. Then you need to understand the basic physics of why the exhaust gases expanded during and after the creation of the spiral because of its inertia gained by its pressurized release and centrifugal forces created by the spin of the missile. This caused the "black hole" to expand while the exhaust gases were fleeing from its original point of ejection in the center. The "black hole" was simply the absence of exhaust gases.

After that you must understand basic astronomy to know that the exhaust gases were at the correct height to be seen from Norway and also still be in direct sunlight causing it to glow. Then you must know some chemistry so you could understand the chemical reactions happening in the upper atmosphere which cause the blue color of the 2nd stage exhaust gases.

After all that you must take into account the eye witness images and videos which show the creation of the spiral, and how they all match perfectly with the missile explanation. You would also have to know a lot about perspective, angles, and photography to understand why the spiral only looked like a spiral to Norway, but looked like a corkscrew to people perpendicular to the missile, and to understand how the majority of the photographers of the event used long exposure times to get a better picture of the event with minimal light.

Also you must note the obvious plume trails. Then you must note the eyewitness reports and their reported direction they were facing, and link that to the direction of the missile shown on their images, and then link that to the official story which is backed by forewarning.

You do know that the day before the event they announced a rocket launch in the White Sea right? You know how many people KNOW it is a missile because they watched the entire thing? MANY.

Then you have to take into account that THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, and in places not even near HAARP facilities, which blows the OP's theories out of the water.

Its already been proven to be a missile, it's just the conspiracy theories continue and you all have been fooled hook line and sinker.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Nothing I said was a logical fallacy, actually, it seems like you just wanted to use that term to sound intelligent.


So saying you know better than someone and to just believe you because you are smarter than they are, is a logical argument?

"Logical fallacy" is not that difficult of a term. If you think I use it to sound more intelligent, that is telling me more about your own intelligence than it is anything about me.


Everything I said was 100% accurate, and I have scientifically proven that it was a missile in many other threads.


Then stop rambling and do it again here. I know proof when I see it. So let's see it. Specifically I want proof that the spiral was created by a spiraling rocket sputtering its gases.



I even have a simulation using real physics to express how the spiral was made.


That is circumstantial evidence. Just because a rocket can theoretically produce the same ejection pattern in a computer simulation, when you set the parameters and all that, doesn't mean that's what we are actually looking at. I am well aware that you think a sputtering rocket can spiral around and do this. I just want actual proof.


What you lack knowledge of is aeronautics, and because of that you don't understand how a missile with forward momentum would fly in an off axis trajectory like a corkscrew when it's 3rd stage exhaust nozzle is bent sideways causing the missile to create a spiral effect with its exhaust gases.


No, I have said repeatedly that I understand this concept, and if you keep asserting that I don't, then you have reading comprehension problems.


Then you need to understand the basic physics of why the exhaust gases expanded during and after the creation of the spiral because of its inertia gained by its pressurized release and centrifugal forces created by the spin of the missile. This caused the "black hole" to expand while the exhaust gases were fleeing from its original point of ejection in the center. The "black hole" was simply the absence of exhaust gases.


I am also aware of this concept, however it is also a theory, based on circumstantial evidence, and not proof.

I am not even going to try to teach you the difference between proof and circumstantial evidence, because I know you will just try to make it into an argument and dispute what constitutes proof. If you want to agree to disagree on what the definition of "proof" is, I am more than willing to do that.


You do know that the day before the event they announced a rocket launch in the White Sea right? You know how many people KNOW it is a missile because they watched the entire thing? MANY.


The Russian military told you it was a rocket. If you think that is proof, then you are pretty naive when it comes to military announcements. It could have been something completely new that none of us here are familiar with, as far as either of us know. And judging by how tight and perfect the entire thing was, and how long it lasted, I would sooner believe that than that this is any kind of failure.


Then you have to take into account that THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, and in places not even near HAARP facilities, which blows the OP's theories out of the water.


The one video you posted to offer another account of this happening, didn't show anywhere near the same result as this particular incident. Only in a very superficial sense did they match. The video you posted showed exactly what I would expect of a rocket spewing fuel of a different temperature than the surrounding atmosphere: it expanded in all directions, just like a gas would. Centrifugal forces are not the only forces at work when you introduce a hotter gas into a cooler one.


Its already been proven to be a missile, it's just the conspiracy theories continue and you all have been fooled hook line and sinker.


Hook, line, and sinker to my own mind, apparently. I never take anything anyone says for granted. You included. I am not subscribing to any "conspiracy theory," except that possibly the Russian military lied or misled about what they were actually testing. You can think what you want about that as far as I care.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by allyoop
one of his confidential sources stated the Norway spiral light was part of Project Blue Beam.


Man I feel stupid now! "bluebeam" is exactly what i've been thinking myself from the very first photo of the spiral I saw.

I decided against posting "it's bluebeam" 2 weeks ago when this story first popped up, and now wish I hadn't worried so much about appearing foolish in front of my peers, so I'm throwing my hat in the ring now,

Agreed, It's bluebeam.
They've got the directional high frequency sound weapons/technology,
now their refining the visual elements....

when are we gonna see the big airship being developed?...now that would be exciting....why does it feel more and more like the world is turning into some kind of odd video game or anime??!....airships...lazer weapons...space elevators...scientists playing 'earthquake tag'....

-B.M

[edit on 16/12/09 by B.Morrison]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So saying you know better than someone and to just believe you because you are smarter than they are, is a logical argument?


No don't "just believe me" how about you research what I say and prove or disprove what I say? You have yet to do that... all you do is deny deny deny.


Originally posted by bsbray11
"Logical fallacy" is not that difficult of a term. If you think I use it to sound more intelligent, that is telling me more about your own intelligence than it is anything about me.


The term is not difficult at all, but when you use for absolutely no reason with absolutely no basis for doing so you seem to be saying it just for the reason of saying it. You didn't even use it in the correct way.. nothing I said was a logical fallacy.

Nice try though, you failed.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Then stop rambling and do it again here. I know proof when I see it. So let's see it. Specifically I want proof that the spiral was created by a spiraling rocket sputtering its gases.


Tell me, what type of proof are you looking for? Because proof is everywhere, you just are too blind to see it, or you are looking for something different.

The images and videos are the proof. There is images of plume trails created by the missile, and the trails lead directly to the spiral. Also, we have proof that missiles spin out of control from time to time and are capable of making perfect spirals. We have proof that missile exhaust gases look exactly the same as the gases that made the spiral, and we have proof that there was a scheduled missile launch that day.

We have a ton of proof, yet you choose to ignore it because of your lack of knowledge, or your religious like devotion to conspiracies.



Originally posted by bsbray11
That is circumstantial evidence. Just because a rocket can theoretically produce the same ejection pattern in a computer simulation, when you set the parameters and all that, doesn't mean that's what we are actually looking at. I am well aware that you think a sputtering rocket can spiral around and do this. I just want actual proof.


You don't "set parameters". Physics is a combination of laws defined by mathematical equations that computers are super good at calculating. This is why there are "flight simulators" used by the military... These same laws of physics are defined by nature, and mocked by computers. All that was needed was an object ejecting gases sideways and forward momentum. You get a perfect spiral without even setting any parameters.

Heck, I can produce the effect with a water sprinkler.


Originally posted by bsbray11
No, I have said repeatedly that I understand this concept, and if you keep asserting that I don't, then you have reading comprehension problems.


No I read that you said that, the problem is, you still haven't shown that you understand it, you only say you do.

What I don't get is why you would throw out a perfectly valid and confirmed explanation and then search for an imaginary explanation that you yourself claimed you don't even know about?

Now that is beyond illogical.


Originally posted by bsbray11
I am also aware of this concept, however it is also a theory, based on circumstantial evidence, and not proof.


So you are calling the images and videos of the actual event circumstantial evidence too? Because we already have proof that it was a missile, there is exhaust plumes from a missile pointing straight at the spiral! DUH! We see the missile spiralling out of control emitting gases exactly like actual missiles.....

The proof is in the images and videos. You are just ignoring the proof because you don't understand how a spiralling missile could make a PERFECT spiral. All your doubts are caused by apparent "perfection" of the spiral which is an idiotic reason to "search for other explanations".



Originally posted by bsbray11
I am not even going to try to teach you the difference between proof and circumstantial evidence, because I know you will just try to make it into an argument and dispute what constitutes proof. If you want to agree to disagree on what the definition of "proof" is, I am more than willing to do that.


You should probably teach yourself what "proof" is, especially when we are talking about a past event with VIDEOS AND IMAGES and PROOF that they announced a missile launch before it happened. And PROOF that it has happened with other missiles.



Originally posted by bsbray11
The Russian military told you it was a rocket. If you think that is proof, then you are pretty naive when it comes to military announcements. It could have been something completely new that none of us here are familiar with, as far as either of us know. And judging by how tight and perfect the entire thing was, and how long it lasted, I would sooner believe that than that this is any kind of failure.


The Russian military didn't tell me anything. I knew it was a rocket just by looking at it. Even then NAVTEX announced to all ship/boat captains to clear the White Sea for rocket testing a day before. That means plenty of ship/boat captains had a chance to watch the entire thing, and probably saw the entire thing.

NAVTEX's announcement alone is PROOF. It could be used in court if needed be.

How long it lasted? The spiral itself only lasted for a few minutes. Exactly the same length of time a 3rd stage of a Bulava missile would take. That is more evidence for you.


Originally posted by bsbray11
The one video you posted to offer another account of this happening, didn't show anywhere near the same result as this particular incident. Only in a very superficial sense did they match. The video you posted showed exactly what I would expect of a rocket spewing fuel of a different temperature than the surrounding atmosphere: it expanded in all directions, just like a gas would. Centrifugal forces are not the only forces at work when you introduce a hotter gas into a cooler one.


I posted TWO videos. It happened in China and Russia before. THEY BOTH ARE IDENTICAL 100%. The only reason you feel they are not identical is because you have been fooled by images that were taken with long exposure times and have exaggerated the event. However all the videos of each even match perfectly. You are just being difficult and close minded to the mundane possibility.

You are religiously addicted to conspiracy.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Hook, line, and sinker to my own mind, apparently. I never take anything anyone says for granted. You included. I am not subscribing to any "conspiracy theory," except that possibly the Russian military lied or misled about what they were actually testing. You can think what you want about that as far as I care.


So are you ignoring the people who say "It was a missile" from personal experience LONG BEFORE the Russian military said anything?

Seriously, use your brain for once. There is images and videos that prove it is a missile, but you just don't have the ability to see it.

Honestly, what good would it be to spread gases in a spiral fashion in the upper atmosphere only to be boiled away by the sun? No good.

It was a failed missile, and a total waste of money that might even halt further testing of that missile.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Haarp can modify weather.

Weather can easily be more destructive than nuclear missiles, I think it's a fair fact quoted. It might be tangled with some untruths or unsupported conspiracy theory

I put forward the notion that HAARP is capable of being a deploy-able weapon as it stands.

Abductee



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Tell me, what type of proof are you looking for? Because proof is everywhere, you just are too blind to see it, or you are looking for something different.


Well, what you have shown me so far is what's known as circumstantial evidence. Actual proof, would just be actual proof. I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that. Like I said, if you want to argue that your circumstantial evidence IS real proof, I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree with you on that point.


The images and videos are the proof. There is images of plume trails created by the missile, and the trails lead directly to the spiral.


Yeah, ok. Then prove a missile made the trail, and especially that it was spiraling around creating what we saw. I see the smoke trail/plume, yes, I have no misunderstanding about that. However, the plume itself does not prove everything else you are saying. That is why it is circumstantial evidence. I assume you ARE familiar with the term "circumstantial evidence"? I am being "by the book" here when I talk about real proof, while you are extrapolating data that does not exist based on what you consider to be similar events.



Also, we have proof that missiles spin out of control from time to time and are capable of making perfect spirals. We have proof that missile exhaust gases look exactly the same as the gases that made the spiral, and we have proof that there was a scheduled missile launch that day.


Can you post that proof again? Is it the same video you posted earlier? You probably realize how easy it is the pick differences out. For a reason.


We have a ton of proof, yet you choose to ignore it because of your lack of knowledge, or your religious like devotion to conspiracies.


You have circumstantial evidence. And a damn lot of arrogance.




You don't "set parameters". Physics is a combination of laws defined by mathematical equations that computers are super good at calculating.


"Super good" huh?


So no one plugs in parameters for initial velocities, an initial direction, anything like that? Someone just showed a computer the video and the computer mapped it out all by itself?


The more you go on and on, the less sense you are making to me.


All that was needed was an object ejecting gases sideways and forward momentum. You get a perfect spiral without even setting any parameters.


Yes, and I obviously am not disputing that. I am simply telling you that it is circumstantial evidence, not proof. Think forensic sense, if that helps. Like crime scene shows. They can have circumstantial evidence against a murderer but still can't convict him because of how great the potential is that they are making a mistake after all. You are apparently free from such constraints when you make free assertions of proof here.



Heck, I can produce the effect with a water sprinkler.


Exactly, so is that proof that it was a water sprinkler? No. At best it is circumstantial evidence that it was a water sprinkler, and as soon as you consider a number of other properties of a water sprinkler, the theory immediately falls apart. It has no proof.


The proof is in the images and videos. You are just ignoring the proof because you don't understand how a spiralling missile could make a PERFECT spiral. All your doubts are caused by apparent "perfection" of the spiral which is an idiotic reason to "search for other explanations".


Look, I don't have a problem understanding that the rocket itself would spiral in a "perfect" spiral and spew something out. The gases themselves are not going to behave like that once they are out in the air, unless they are NOT rocket fuel.


You should probably teach yourself what "proof" is, especially when we are talking about a past event with VIDEOS AND IMAGES and PROOF that they announced a missile launch before it happened. And PROOF that it has happened with other missiles.


I would say ditto, so I take it we are agreeing to disagree on the definition of "proof."

All you have, is circumstantial.


I posted TWO videos. It happened in China and Russia before. THEY BOTH ARE IDENTICAL 100%. The only reason you feel they are not identical is because you have been fooled by images that were taken with long exposure times and have exaggerated the event. However all the videos of each even match perfectly. You are just being difficult and close minded to the mundane possibility.

You are religiously addicted to conspiracy.


Actually I don't think I've seen both videos, maybe not even one of them. But it is getting annoying to see you go off your chain and froth at the mouth so readily for such a stupid argument and topic. Rational people are calm. I can't for the life of me understand what is so important for you to gain here, to get so obviously emotionally involved.



Seriously, use your brain for once. There is images and videos that prove it is a missile, but you just don't have the ability to see it.


Do you know what separates you from any other zealot right now?

Nothing.

I don't even claim to know what caused this thing, I am simply expressing my doubt towards your theory and letting you know that all your "proof" is really circumstantial evidence.

So please keep your personal attacks to yourself. I don't care for them and I'm sure it doesn't come across as very becoming to anyone else here.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join