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 Mathematically Proven to not be a Missile

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by liveandletlive
 


They were taken from Troms- specifically Dverberg and Vardfjellet

My guess is the photographer(s) was facing in an eastern direction, as indicated by the rising sun on the horizon

Edit to add: photos from here



[edit on 21-12-2009 by PhotonEffect]




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

You've obviously devoted quite some time, energy and emotion in coming up with a theory as to what this spiral was not. I'm no trig expert so I'm really not in a position to challenge the inner workings of your math. However you're not accounting for one major piece of evidence that goes against what your trying to show... the images of the missile exhaust plume that's clearly apart of this whole event. I posted these in your thread and asked for you to account for them but you conveniently ignored it.

So, I'm confused as to what you think it was if you're trying to show it wasn't a rocket. From your above quote though it seems you are suggesting now that EISCAT launched a missile?? So which is it that you believe? A missile or not?

And where's the evidence of missile launch from EISCAT?

Or please account for the missile plumes in these images. I know you've seen these already but... well you know, it's part of the reason why many think it was in fact a missile..


In my earlier attempt at performing an analysis, it became clearly obvious that the failed missile scenario simply didn't hold up for many reasons (please read earlier posts in this and my other threads) and was immediately discounted by myself and others.

Obviously the exhaust/smoke plume was taken by the pro missile people as a direct indication and confirmation that the spiral had to have been the result of the failed missile as Russia had admitted to a launch that same day.
However, my analysis seemed to indicate that the spiral and consequently, the exhaust plume was actually located somewhere within Norway itself and possibly close to the EISCAT establishment.

Now, the spiral could have possibly had a connection to EISCAT but at the time, the smoke plume was unaccounted for and remained a mystery.
But soon afterwards, I came across a scientific report that directly hinted that the EISCAT facility near Tromso did indeed apparently have launch capabilities ... not for huge rockets/missiles but for smaller sounding rockets that they would have used in various experiments, etc.

So now, instead of just a single source of the exhaust plume (the Russian missile), we now have a potential second source, namely the EISCAT facility itself ... which would lend credence to the location of the plume being within Norway itself and close to Tromso where many of the photos of the plume were taken.

If the plume was caused by a rocket launch from EISCAT, there are a few possible reasons why this launch could have taken place:

1. The rocket was launched and somehow created the spiral
2. The spiral was somehow created and the rocket launched to study it
3. The rocket was launched to terminate/shut down the spiral

Whichever (if any) of the above may have happened, the common thread is that the rocket was obviously available at very short notice as the spiral event only lasted for a very short time - this immediately implies that either the EISCAT people were coincidently about to perform an unrelated experiment using the rocket OR alternatively, had ADVANCE notice that the spiral event was to take place.

The above obviously is conjecture on my part but the important point being made here is that we can no longer categorically assume/state that the sole cause of the exhaust plume was ONLY the failed Russian missile ... it could have quite conceivably been a local launch on Norwegian soil from the EISCAT location.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
During sunset and sundown, atmospheric optics plays tricks on the eyes.

So do pictures that have been exposed for apparently the entire life cycle of the "gateway to another dimension opened up by extraterrestrial reptoids"



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

In your earlier attempt your trigonometry was in error so you really demonstrated nothing. But the OP of this thread had an interesting idea to use the radial velocity of the effluent to prove that the source of the spiral could not have been the Bulava. Let's revisit this idea but clear up some problems with the OP's attempt.

First, in an attempt to disprove that the spiral was produced by the Bulava, let's assume that it was. Let's clear up the height of the spiral. In order to calculate some important numbers we start by using the distance of 971km (from Amini, and applying it to a round Earth) we first find the angle drawn from the center of the Earth.

Using the formula for the angle of a circular arc of length 971 using the Earth's radius (c=3959km) we solve for angle A:
A = 971/(3959*π)*180
A = 14.053º
At 17.727º above the horizon we know that angle B=107.727º (90+17.727)
We solve for the third angle C = 58.22º (180-107.727)
We now have enough information to find two important values; the height of the spiral and the straight line distance from Tromso.

Using the sine rule (sin(A)/a=sin(B)/b=sin(C)/c) we can now find length b
sin(C)/c=sin(B)/b
b=sin(B)3959/sin(C)
b = 4436
So height of C above the Earth's surface = 477km (4436-3959). Well high enough to dispense with any worries about the speed of sound or air currents disturbing the effluent.

To determine the radius of the spiral we need two more values, the length of line a and the angular radius of the spiral
To find a we again use the sine rule:
a=sin(A)3959/sin(C)
a = 1131
Because we know nothing about the characteristics of the lens used in the photograph we can not use the apparent diameter as seen (if we use Amini's elevation of 17.727º, it appears to be about 21º). The spiral has been described as "significantly larger than the Moon" and more specifically as 2-3 times the size of a full moon (it should be noted that a half moon was visible in the sw at the time). This would give it an angular radius of .75º (we've used this figure before and it is consistent with many of the photos and videos).
We find the actual radius:
r=a tan(7.5º)
r = 14.8km




To find the radial velocity of the effluent we have to know how long it took for the effluent to traverse the radius of the spiral. In this video
www.youtube.com...
The ejection of material ends at :09 and the spiral is completely gone at :17. It takes about 8 seconds for the ejected material to traverse the radius of the spiral. This enables us to make an estimate of the velocity:
v=14.8/8
v=1.85km/s
The radial velocity is consistent with the exhaust velocity of a liquid fueled rocket. If anything, it is too slow which would further support the theory of a failure in which effluent was ejected before reaching its maximum velocity in the rocket nozzle.
en.wikipedia.org...



Based on a presumed distance of 971km, the height and exhaust velocity are consistent with a missile. The distance makes it consistent with being the Bulava missile. A range in distance of 600 km still gives acceptable figures:
At 671 km the height is 290km, the diameter 19.6km, and the velocity is 1.2km/s
At 1,271 km the height is 709km, the diameter 40.1km, and the velocity is 2.5km/s

The OP has not disproved the Bulava.

[edit on 12/21/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
trigNspirals, could you tell me what your qualifications are?
is this your field of study?
or profession?

i liked your blog, so far
i'm going back and check it out further

but i want to know more about you so that i can understand this whole thing - so far, your work seems sound and makes sense in many ways

i'll elaborate later

--------------------------

i'm in agreement with:
bsbray11
ProRipp
JackWestJr

the first part of this thread was shameful not only as far as common courtesy and hospitality but also in the undermining of the very core principle of ATS:
DENY IGNORANCE
(rather than parade around in it like an easter bonnet)


in other words, which of you jokers can show me that you know trigonometry?
and if you can, then please review and let us know!

but unless i see some sort of EVIDENCE that all this unnecessarily rude and partially scornful skepticism (of which there is NOT a healthy amount but rather one more akin to ignorance)...then i'm not gonna listen to any argument against this hypothesis.

if it isn't valid, then SHOW US
if you can't, then OPEN YOUR MIND and CLOSE your mouth!


the previous comments exclude the following (among others):


Phage wrote:

A hypothesis was presented for "peer review".


and i must say, to that, who has posted in this thread that can prove themselves to actually be a "peer?"
i saw your post with the equations, however, and will look at them further
but i've been following this thing since the 9th and i don't see any difference in your own adamant support of your favored theory than that of the OP...
your mind just seems so closed to anything OTHER than what you already believe to be true - but that's okay - you're obviously in good company and i'm not trying to be a jerk about it.

i just don't see how ANYONE of us, in ALL THE WORLD, can yet be 100% certain of ANYTHING yet.

and THAT is the essential component in a successful search for truth - admitting that we might not know all that we'd like to think we know.

beginner's mind and all that.


------------------------

and to tauristercus, in reply to this:

You obviously either didn't read the OP's premise ... OR you failed to understand the conclusions reached regarding the upper and lower limits on the properties of the spiral, especially those regarding wave propagation velocity.


if we did, then, PLEASE EXPLAIN to us what you mean!
help us to understand the conclusions and why they are erroneous.
can you do this math?
or are you saying they are NOT erroneous?
(i'm confused)
if you can, then what do you come up with?
and PLEASE, show your work.
i'm not trying to challenge you but rather just asking for extraordinary evidence...blah blah blah...plus i don't understand, myself, but sincerely want to

(and i am planning on reading what you've posted here, on this subject)

i like what you say about not being satisfied with the failed-rocket theory...but i don't yet understand what you are saying.



---------------------

and one more thing, to all whom this concerns...Newton's ideas were reformed through the work of Einstein, right?

general relativity and all that?




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
has anyone here bothered to check out anything else at the OP's [trigNspirals] blog?
i did that first off after my prior scalding post in this thread - first order of business, imo

vibrational energies and holographic universes and cold fusion and DNA and fractals and even the great underlying power that is electromagnetism....

my money is on him, without question.
i'm not saying ANYONE is right OR wrong
it's surely a combination of both for all of us
and all of us are equally capable of knowing what truth feels like when it hits the bottom of your stomach
yet who's going to agree with THAT?


so either you'll understand or you won't - however, that doesn't mean that it isn't valid or possible or even potentially actual TRUTH
(and what are the odds?)

and even though i said before that none of us can say we know FOR SURE and provide empirical evidence in support...i also must say that i do believe it's within our grasp to one day KNOW for sure...all of us (humanity) as a team

so we'll see...




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 

tauristercus indeed has his own thread in which he puts forward a decent theory against the failed rocket theory ! Here it is :-

Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !
www.abovetopsecret.com...

cheers for the support !



[edit on 113131p://12America/Chicago21 by ProRipp]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by queenannie38
 

tauristercus indeed has his own thread in which he puts forward a decent theory against the failed rocket theory ! Here it is :-

Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !
www.abovetopsecret.com...

cheers for the support !


thank you, my friend!

tauristercus is next on my list after i investigate the things that Phage set forth with his own calculations, earlier in this thread.

poor Russia...they've had it so bad for so long (ever since Ivan the Terrible!)...they just humbly take the blame!

perhaps if the whole idea of "blame" was thrown out....it would be a shorter trip to the truth for all of us!

it didn't hurt anyone
nor was there any damage done to property.
at least as far as i know.

so why BLAME?

if it somehow turns out to be something beyond anything so far proposed...then it might also turn out to be something that should be CREDITED rather than FAULTED?!?



i wonder who'd be volunteering to bask in all that glory, in that case?


probably the US!

(yikes - sorry about that - but we are often rather arrogant here in the states)



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


At least Phage is the only one of the FARRTS (failed Russian rocket theorist's) to attempt to show through maths,trigonometry what he believes happened ! I'll grant him that !



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I couldn't be bothered reading another full day's worth of posts arguing for and against it is a rocket/not a rocket missile argument.

I know for a fact it wasn't a darn rocket/missile, failed, not failed, advanced or not advanced. It just wasn't and that's that.

The fact that it appeared around the time all the top dogs were at their big conference, that wasn't a coincidence, that was planned.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
First, in an attempt to disprove that the spiral was produced by the Bulava, let's assume that it was.


but how does that fix anything?
why not just examine the spiral as a spiral of unknown origin?

also, if you go that route, and come up with a height of 477 km, what did you find out?

that's what it is going to be, if you START with the ASSUMPTION that it WAS definitely a KNOWN variable, namely a Bulava missile.

maybe it was
maybe it wasn't
but how can an answer be found if there is already an answer supplied?

because it is not known
not for sure, not by any of us for sure, if not even by the so-called *experts*

however, the principles of wave motion and the sine function seem to be rooted in nature rather than man-made effects (whether successful or not) - which leads me back to the same thing that's bugged me all along....such a perfect wave-form spiral must surely be yet beyond the capability of man to produce by physical design

ESPECIALLY in something that 'failed' rather than 'succeeded'


the only thing that seems certain about this whole incident is that it is definitely an ANOMALY
regardless of what caused it...it is new to human perception!

otherwise none of us would be going on and on about it!



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by queenannie38
 


At least Phage is the only one of the FARRTS (failed Russian rocket theorist's) to attempt to show through maths,trigonometry what he believes happened ! I'll grant him that !


that's right!

true
true
a true peer review

kudos to you Phage
forgive me my acerbic nature
it's never personal!

(but i'm still not any more convinced than our last exchange)



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JackWestJr
I know for a fact it wasn't a darn rocket/missile, failed, not failed, advanced or not advanced. It just wasn't and that's that.


in my gut, i don't think it was, either
i feel it is impossible

but still i feel that i must be able to support even my own personal ideas with empirical evidence - or anyone else's, as well - before making up my mind to persuade or dissuade

i just want to find out what it was

....and so if not a rocket, then WHAT WAS IT?

what would make such a perfect wave-form?
something only natural?
like time
timespace
spacetime

maybe just a ripple in the cosmic pond...



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


Obviously because you're intelligent enough to realize that PDF files contain viruses 99% and it is very easy to be infected with one correct?

Designing a virus into a PDF is like designing a virus into a JPEG, it can be done, but, it's to much work and hotfixes for your super intelligent microsoft based operating system you run keep you from getting a virus, better yet -- if you're on mac you wont get one anyways! and better yet, learn to linux! even better than ALL of that, you're not going to get a virus from the PDF because I downloaded it and scanned it with Avast.


And obviously enough, it was not a missile and thanks for the information OP.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 

The hypothesis of the OP is that the spiral could not have been caused by the Bulava. By using the parameters specified by the OP it is shown that this is not the case.

Waveforms do not radiate in spirals. "Spiral waveform" is a contradiction in terms. A circular waveform is possible, a spiral is not. A wave is a transfer of energy through a medium in which the medium itself shows no net movement. What is displayed in the spiral is the constant radial motion of material outward from a rotating central point, like a lawn sprinkler.


[edit on 12/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by JackWestJr
I know for a fact it wasn't a darn rocket/missile, failed, not failed, advanced or not advanced. It just wasn't and that's that.


in my gut, i don't think it was, either
i feel it is impossible

but still i feel that i must be able to support even my own personal ideas with empirical evidence - or anyone else's, as well - before making up my mind to persuade or dissuade

i just want to find out what it was

....and so if not a rocket, then WHAT WAS IT?

what would make such a perfect wave-form?
something only natural?
like time
timespace
spacetime

maybe just a ripple in the cosmic pond...


Ah, thank you, at last a reasonable post, an enquiring mind that would like to solve the mystery and their intuition as told them something..........that it wasn't a rocket/missile..........but you would like to find out.............

I was given a link by someone today that actually explained it to me. I can tell things as a sensitive when I read them or see or hear them. I read the link and that actually answered it for me, because I wasn't sure myself except I knew it was that Einscat thing...whatever, Haarp, rocket/missile.

I will not be bothered giving the link here because I am on ATS at the moment...........


It is on the net, so go and search..................the truth is out there.

And No it has nothing to do with religion.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You've been using the "lawn sprinkler" comparison since this all formulated.
I got it the first time. Understood it. And better than that...(minus the cool colors) one of my kids "water" rockets did something similar this year. After daddy decided it would be "cool" to use the air compressor to pressurize the rocket. Woops.

It looped wider and wider on the way up and spiraled water outward until it lost pressure. No cool explosion at the end...and visually not as stunning as this one. But the sprinkler made sense the first time I read it. Minus all the math...(which is way out of my league.) haha.

What do people think is more plausible than a rocket going haywire?




[edit on 22-12-2009 by Demoncreeper]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Phage
First, in an attempt to disprove that the spiral was produced by the Bulava, let's assume that it was.




i think u have posts mixed up here that wasnt me who said that !



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Phage
First, in an attempt to disprove that the spiral was produced by the Bulava, let's assume that it was.




i think u have posts mixed up here that wasnt me who said that !


huh?

i didn't think it was!
it was Phage.
that whole post was to him, not you

or are we talking about two different things?


my brain is screaming "uncle!"




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


No you have it correct now it was Phage the FARRTist



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join