Norway Spiral Mathematically Proven to not be a Missile

Originally posted by ProRipp
Careful Queenannie or the FARRTs will try and convince you the moon is made of green cheese !

more like it will be the farts of the FARRT's that will convince me regarding the ingredients of the moon!
that is...if FARRT's like to dine 'on' the moon!
(wherein, hopefully it is NOT cheese of any color!)



you guys are cracking me up!

and Jack, you say:

Good luck with that in 2010

that made me laugh and i don't even know why!
maybe i'm just happy today

i hope everyone else is happy, too; regardless of what they think that spiral came from! or anything else, for that matter!
in the end...it will all just be *details* methinks.

reply to post by Phage


aaah, i don't like all this "telephone-game." that's not science, phage, and you know it. how likely are you to believe someone's case who tells you that they read about someone else who saw a UFO (for instance)? you would strike that down as bs instantly.
there can be too much variance on the radial angle of the radial angle of the spiral for such soft estimates. plus, you have no reason to say it was over the white sea.

if the spiral source was hundreds of kilometers up and re-entering the atmosphere, how could it's frequency of rotation be on the order of ~1Hz? it would be spinning much faster, no?
also, if there was a malfunction and the missile was "leaking fuel" at 14-30km/s (in the range of the missile's proper escape velocity), how is it that the spiral source does not deviate off it's original spin axis? that much miss-matched thrust, it would seem, should send the "missile" into a wider and wider spiral trajectory- something akin to the blue spiral?


also, the entire sky was not entirely covered in clouds, and given the quality of the photos/videos taken from over 1000km, as you postulated, how is it that NO ONE outside of northern finland/norway saw this?



[edit on 24-12-2009 by trigNspirals]

reply to post by trigNspirals

In this case, using eyewitness estimates is more reliable than attempting to use a photograph which distorts the perspective and I have tested a range of apparent diameters. I have reason to say it was over the White Sea, that's where the missile was launched but it doesn't matter because I used your outside limit. The limit that would yield the greatest exhaust velocity.

You are making a lot of assumptions. The missile was not re-entering when the spiral was seen, it was still thrusting. I don't understand why you say it would be spinning faster than 1Hz. I don't know where you get the 14-30km/s figure or what it has to do with what we are talking about, that is far faster than any ICBM travels. ICBMs do not reach escape velocity or even orbital velocity, they follow ballistic trajectories. As my calculations show, the exhaust velocity would have been 1.85km/s, well within the realm of possibility. Apparently the spin axis was closely aligned with the direction of flight. Since we don't know the mode of failure it would be pure speculation to assume otherwise.

Another assumption; that "no one" outside of northern Norway saw the spiral. The satellite image show that the majority of Scandinavia was covered with clouds and fog but you are right, there were areas that were not; Puoltsa,Sweden for example. It is about 200km south of Tromso. Interestingly, the photo taken from there also has the spiral in the East. Since the spiral was observed in such widely separated areas, in the same general direction and perspective, it would indicate that the spiral was quite distant from both. No?
www.nsd.se...


[edit on 12/24/2009 by Phage]

So how big was this spiral, and how fast must those "gases" have been traveling?

That is the golden question on this thread.


Upper bounds, lower bounds, most accurate estimates, what have any of you got? You know trigonometry won't lie to you, if you even still remember it from high school.

reply to post by bsbray11

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think that the Spiral was a laser show, kind of like a fireworks laser show. Wouldn't it be easy to put on a sky light show with a computer and lightworks. ...kind of like this you tube video...

www.youtube.com...

Usually, laser light shows are set to music, so, I mean if those teenager kids in the mountains set the show to light using optics, what materials would you need to make one of those. I'd be delighted to try it myself..

reply to post by Phage

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.

So for clarification, you are working with the assumption that the spiral was 477 km (296.4 miles) in the air?

reply to post by bsbray11

So for clarification, you are working with the assumption that the spiral was 477 km (296.4 miles) in the air?

No.
There is no air that high. Not enough to pay any attention to.

Using the upper limit of the OP, that is the altitude of the spiral.

[edit on 12/24/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Fine, drop the word "air."

Approximately 300 miles altitude is where you place the spiral. Correct? Basically, you are saying it was in space.

Jumbo jets typically cruise at 7.5 miles, and the world record altitude for an aircraft is 85,135 ft. or about 16 miles. 100 km or about 62 miles altitude is commonly considered when an astronaut enters space. And you are saying the spiral is about 300 miles altitude.


I am going to go brush up on mathematics regarding perspective so I can estimate the size of the spiral myself, but just thinking of how big a typical jumbo jet appears in the air as it cruises at only 7.5 miles altitude gives me a good feeling that something that appeared so relatively large in the sky, at 40x the distance of a jumbo jet, is going to be pretty damned big.



Can one of you guys provide the image in particular you are using for this analysis?






You see what I mean about this thing going to be huge, if it is really 300 miles up in space, when the jumbo jets you see in the sky are cruising only 7.5 miles up?

This thing is so not one of these:



[edit on 24-12-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

Good luck. Using a photograph is useless unless you know the characteristics of the camera. As has been pointed out. A telephoto lens exaggerates the apparent size of the spiral.

When using a lens with a narrower field of view, a telephoto lens, the image needs to be stretched to fit the space, as shown in figure 2(c). The perspective is again distorted, but in the opposite way. Scale and distance proportions between foreground and background diminish so that objects far away appear larger than they are and nearly as big as those close by, and it appears there is virtually no distance between them.

scien.stanford.edu...

[edit on 12/24/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by bsbray11


I agree, and that's what I'm saying. The high altitude and the super massive perfect spiral just don't make sense when you consider the large scale of the thing. I just can't see that third stage spitting out a disc that dang big!

When I see a failed rocket it's pretty ho hum, but this appeals to my senses as something other than a rocket.

I think it would help to use the minimum altitude guesses to then determine if the spirals appearent outer diameter is even plausable.

Hope all you old farts (lol...whatever it's called) don't take this anti rocket argument personally. Many of us just don't see the missle you do and we don't believe a random failure can be so perfectly odd. Yes some of the video looks plausable as a missle, but the stills and IR just say "That's no missle" to us.

We are still speculating as to what the really is while thae farts want it put to bed. Sorry bout that.

Merry Christmas anyway!

Originally posted by Phage
Good luck. Using a photograph is useless unless you know the characteristics of the camera. As has been pointed out. A telephoto lens exaggerates the apparent size of the spiral.

Then what in the hell are you basing YOUR math on?

Seriously, you are claiming this thing is 300 miles up in space. I'm going to do my math assuming you are correct but I hardly believe the thing is actually at that altitude, and I KNOW it wouldn't be a rocket if the spiral were produced at that altitude, and appearing as the size that it does.


You use 971 km for the arc distance along the ground. The diameter of the Earth is 12,715 km.

So make 12,715km the circumference of this circle, which represents a 2D slice of the diameter of the Earth (Earth assumed spherical):



"S" is your arc distance (971 km). I'm going to find the linear distance between the two ends of this arc so I can use simple trig to find the distance between the camera and the spiral itself, since at that point we will have a linear equivalent ground distance and also your assumed altitude of 477km.

S = 971km = (radius) (angle theta, in radians)

First to find the radius by finding the diameter (and then dividing by 2 obviously):

(circumference)/(diameter) = 3.1415, or pi
12,715/d = 3.1415
d = 4047.4km

r = 2023.7km


So then returning to the first equation:

971km = (2024km) (theta)
theta = 0.4797 radians = 27.48 degrees

Since the end points of the arc are both on the circumference (ie surface of the Earth) they both have a length from the center equal to the radius of the circle, 2024km. This is an isosceles triangle. The two angles opposite the equal sides of the triangle are also equal, and of course all 3 angles sum to 180 degrees.

180 - 27.48 = 152.52 degrees. Divided by 2 is 76.26 degrees for each remaining angle.

The sine of 27.48 degrees (the length in question divided by 2024km) is 0.4614.

(0.4614) (2024km) = 933.9km.


Now we can work with a right triangle.



Side "a" is the vertical altitude you have suggested, of 477km.

Side "b" is the linear distance of 934km between the two end points of the arc 971km along the ground. Without this linear distance, you couldn't use Pythagoran theorem as you wouldn't have a triangle, just to reiterate why I had to find this distance.

Side "c" is the distance between the camera and the spiral itself.


a^2 + b^2 = c^2, or
227,529 + 872,356 = 1,099,885
Side "c" = 1048.8km

So I've got approximately 1049km between a photographer and the spiral itself, using your altitude and arc distance, Phage.

So here is where having to use a photograph comes into play. You can use trig to find the size of the spiral because the view from the camera extends like a triangle away from the photographer.




Notice immediately in front of the camera, from the side of the house in the foreground to the leftmost part of the road you can see, is a distance that could be measured in only a few meters. Farther back, at the mountain, 9-10km away (absolute maximum), you are looking at a distance across the visible portion of the mountain (width) of somewhere in the order of 100's of meters, up to a couple of kilometers or so, depending on the photo.

If we can pinpoint any two distances (widths visible at various depths of the photo) and verify them using Google maps or whatever else, then we can trace the triangle that describes the view extending from the photographer (any in this particular Norwegian city) and terminates at a distance of 1049km with the spiral itself.

Then, once we have done this, we can find the total width of the sky in the photograph and compare the spiral to that by proportion in the photo. That way we can measure just how wide the spiral is. It is going to be MASSIVE and I hope you understand this as clearly as I and the others here do. 300 miles up in space is nothing to joke about, especially when this thing is as big as it appears in the sky in photos. Chalking that up to the lens is nearly as bad as saying a camera lens is going to make the Moon take up half of the night sky. The lens excuse is not going to be a catch-all for your nonsense once we finally pin some real distances down in the foreground of the photo.


So if we want to verify or refute the claimed altitude of 477km, and claimed distance of 1049km, we need to find at least 2 or 3 points in a photograph whose widths and distances can be measured from Google maps or etc.

[edit on 25-12-2009 by bsbray11]

Phage, I am looking at the maps on page 3 of the PDF in the OP and I am going to have to say that the 971km distance you picked to the White Sea is also probably way off based on the mountains you see in the photos. The maximum elevation of the mountains in the photos is noted there as being only about 10km from the photographer. That is a much more realistic distance imo, as it means the spiral is not going to be nearly as enormous as it would have to be to appear the same size from 971km away. The spiral is obviously coming from behind the mountains, but assuming this was over the White Sea is assuming a distance about 100x further than the mountains themselves.

The only reason I can see for you trying to place this spiral directly over the White Sea, is simply because you are trying to FORCE it to be a rocket as per your personal opinion, which was pre-conceived and apparently not based on any of this math. The increase in distance from the mountain you see (10km away) to the White Sea (971km away) is a MASSIVE increase (again, about 100x further) and for all of that distance in between, we have absolutely nothing to suggest it was right behind the mountain as opposed to directly over the White Sea or anywhere in between. At least as far as I can see. So why did you assume this thing had to be directly over the White Sea again?


I have to ask the same question trigsnspirals did:

If this thing was REALLY almost 1000km from the photographer, why in the hell was it only reported from that single location? Even if this thing WAS a missile, the distances you are asserting are involved are of a ridiculous scale. You would have been able to see this thing from Russia and a lot of other places in Europe if this thing was 300 miles in space above the White Sea.

All in all.. without even being able to finish the math to finally prove it (yet), what you are suggesting is already completely debunked imo. There is no good reason to believe where you say it was except that you are trying to FORCE the missile theory to be correct and ignoring everything about this that suggests otherwise, ie how completely ridiculous the distances you are talking about are. At least move the missile further inland, and into a lower altitude, to make your theory more realistic. Otherwise you seem to have no realistic conception of what you are really saying.

And let's be frank here. I'm studying electronics engineering and I have to not only be able to use math and formulas but also to be able to intuitively assess the validity of numbers as they pertain to reality. When you are asserting this spiral is farther out than the next farthest items in the photos (mountains) by a factor of about 100, based on absolutely nothing but your own pre-conceived opinions, alarm bells are going off that you are simply describing your opinions in numbers and are not actually doing any real science (which is exactly what I have seen here). What is your field of expertise again, or your college/university major? Why should I even believe you intuitively understand what you are saying in the first place? Because as far as I have seen, the extent of your expertise is the arrogant chap on your avatar, decorated with medals for consistently denouncing mysterious appearances in the sky as rockets, satellites and swamp gas no doubt. And it's no secret that it doesn't take more than an adolescent with an undeserved sense of accomplishment to achieve all that. So I am simply asking out of curiosity, what exactly are your credentials?

[edit on 25-12-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by UFOabducteebe

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by trigNspirals


I do not attempt to explain what the Spirals are, rather, my sole purpose is to prove that the cause COULD NOT be a missile.

any and all comments/questions/concerns are welcome.

As a man of science I must say your bias will detract from your arguments.

It's not unscientific to bash something with a hammer. Science always has been biased, sadly.. but this is not one of those cases.. if it is not challenging someone as being unscientific, it's claiming that they are biased.

such a statement made by people such as you are saying testing a theory is biased

Get real.

Let him ask questions, and use the 'big hammer' as scientists so boldly overstate on something scientists already scoff at , ignore and specificall set out to debunk - and that is not biased too? - hehe. Man is biased, to stupidity , at best. from what i've seen that encompasses us all.

It's still good to ask questions, even if they are rigid *cough, scientific*

Science you say? No rigid question, no rigid answer. No rigid experiment, stupid meaningless data with no goal. Perhaps it's not such madness to use that hammer as a skeptic or a 'truther'. Indeed, to say that it is not, would be a contradiction of its own scientific shortcoming.



Abductee

[edit on 18-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

Sorry, but if your sole purpose is to prove something you are inherently biased. Period. And stating such openly and immediately should naturally inspire skepticism in any thinking individual. Such a proclamation is the calling card of pseudoscience, not science. So please, let's not breach the decorum by becoming smarmy.

LOL! So what do you call scientists who refuse to even look at ZPE/free-energy machines that obviously do work? They won't look because they falsely believe that they understand all there is to understand about energy and the universe. So who is biased then? The fact is:

If there is the tiniest chance that perhaps physics is even remotely incomplete in its description of the universe, any true scientist OWES IT to science and himself to investigate any serious scientific claim, using his best ability, with an open mind, critical thinking, and scientific rigor. He MUST NOT, however, limit his thinking to only that which he has already concluded, but must seriously seek an explanation that may indeed either enhance or modify his existing assumptions.

In short, he must seriously guard against that infernal enemy to true science....PARADIGM!

reply to post by bsbray11

Always a pleasure to be on the same side of the debate.

Thank the cosmos that, trig is not even necessary to debunk any missile theory.
The launch was 90 degrees from the planned course. The friggin supposed missile should have been aborted before attaining any altitude at all. With in seconds.
The blue spiral seems to come from right to left.(south to north). The planned trajectory for a Russian Missile was east to west.
Even so, why would the supposed projectile (damned dangerous thing that it is, be allowed to freekin spiral out of control so near to 5 million Norwegians for so long??)

Ok, Then why did the spiral just crank an immediate 90 degrees to the north to present a technically impossible white spiral. Such a tight radius cannot be attained by a rocket at the reported velocity. Better yet where the hell did it all of a sudden disappear to???
DID IT SUCK ITSELF INTO INVISIBILITY???
Thanks for being here BSbray the opposition with all their recourses are at a loss.
What the heck is their game?


[edit on 25-12-2009 by Donny 4 million]

out of control sambvca projectile

[edit on 25-12-2009 by Donny 4 million]

Phage you rock.

But you are peeing in the wind trying to convince those who already have decided it was not a failed rocket launch.

They are the same ones that try to use strictly math and not science to come to a conclusion.

They have not taken to account that the northern latitudes aerial phenomena appears differently because of the extreme cold.

The polar region ionosphere can also create strange aerial light shows Even though this was not the time of year for the Northern Lights to be active,the polar region is still ionized.

One poster has another thread where he says if it was a rocket why was it headed west and not east toward its planned landing?

Someday a rocket scientist can explain to him you have to aim a rocket at the point where the target will be when the rocket gets there.

At that launch latitude the earth is rotating at about 450 miles an hour. With the HIGH ballistic trajectory the amount of distance traveled would be significantly more than a line drawn from point A to B on Google earth.

Due to a malfunction, the Saturn V Rocket burned unusually high in the atmosphere, above 300 km. This burn produced "a large ionospheric hole" (Mendillo, M. Et al., Science 187,343, 1975). The disturbance reduced the total electron content more than 60% over an area 1,000 km in radius, and lasted for several hours. It prevented all telecommunications over a large area of the Atlantic Ocean. The phenomenon was apparently caused by a reaction between the exhaust gases and ionospheric oxygen ions. The reaction emitted a 6300 A airglow. Between 1975 and 1981 NASA and the US Military began to design ways to test this new phenomena through deliberate experimentation with the ionosphere.

It is logical to look for a scientific answer to this phenomena. Advanced math does not prove a thing.

Now that said.This is the link I used to find the information.

www.ratical.com...

They started noticing odd things happening in the ionosphere during rocket launches.That is how HAARP came about.

It was not caused by EISCAT but if they knew that a publicized launch over the pole was going to be taking place I am sure they took advantage and got good data from the Russians misfortune.

reply to post by calcoastseeker


HAARP has been around as long as these missiles in question.
Correct?
The flights have been photographed . Correct?
Show the photographic results of a HAARP transmission if you have the nads. Let's compare them.
Phage, Dagger, anyone?

Originally posted by calcoastseeker
Phage you rock.

But you are peeing in the wind trying to convince those who already have decided it was not a failed rocket launch.

They are the same ones that try to use strictly math and not science to come to a conclusion.

Science means absolutely nothing without math. Without being able to quantify data, what data do you even have?

They have not taken to account that the northern latitudes aerial phenomena appears differently because of the extreme cold.

I don't think you've actually been reading the posts here at all. I think you are just stepping in and spewing your opinion without even following along with the thread. Not exactly an educated opinion you are contributing.

At that launch latitude the earth is rotating at about 450 miles an hour. With the HIGH ballistic trajectory the amount of distance traveled would be significantly more than a line drawn from point A to B on Google earth.

That has nothing to do with the width that the spiral grew to encompass, if Phage's assertion that the thing was 300 miles up in space is anywhere close to accurate. When we finally nail down reference points for the photos, you will have the opportunity to see what exactly is being asserted here, if you can't make it out yet. I am not discounting the possibility that this is military technology, but it is still not as simple of a formation as you are saying it is.

Due to a malfunction, the Saturn V Rocket burned unusually high in the atmosphere, above 300 km. This burn produced "a large ionospheric hole" (Mendillo, M. Et al., Science 187,343, 1975). The disturbance reduced the total electron content more than 60% over an area 1,000 km in radius, and lasted for several hours. It prevented all telecommunications over a large area of the Atlantic Ocean. The phenomenon was apparently caused by a reaction between the exhaust gases and ionospheric oxygen ions. The reaction emitted a 6300 A airglow. Between 1975 and 1981 NASA and the US Military began to design ways to test this new phenomena through deliberate experimentation with the ionosphere.

It is logical to look for a scientific answer to this phenomena. Advanced math does not prove a thing.

Trigonometry is something every high school graduate is supposed to know, not "advanced math." And depending on what the math represents, it very well COULD prove this thing was not the result of spewed rocket gases, despite your claims to the contrary. Science depends on math. Again, we are not talking about the appearance of the atmospheric glow.

when the serious scientific investigation/reserch is done,

we will find are selfs with the smoking gun we have all been waiting for, im 100% sure of that...

kids stop with the rockit/missle or black project haarp/blue beam sillyness we do not have technology like that, the norway or russian insedent, its a clear as day wots going on in the pictures and videos