Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 309 times


reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:10 PM by davesidious
reply to post by loOranks



If people can't demonstrate what they're saying, they shouldn't post it. I think there should be less posted on ATS if it contains rubbish like the baseless "shooting down some trans-dimensional zero-G spacecraft" hypothesis.

We're here to deny ignorance, not allow it to spread unabated. Yes, ATS should help an open mind, but if that mind lacks critical thinking, allowing it to drown in this nonsense is not helping.


reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:13 PM by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by JayinAR



The functions of trigonometry only serve to explain the location or the triangulation of the point of supposed origin. It does not explain the speed of the missile, the charge of the atmosphere, the speed of the "supposed" spin out/failure of the missile. It also does not explain the perfect concentric circles which are far too numerous for a standard missile failure, and it does not explain the electromagnetic radiation of the blue trail. As a person who has seen quite a few missile launches, I can say that I HAVE NEVER, EVER, SEEN A BLUE TRAIL LEFT AS A RESULT OF A MISSILE TEST. This would be the first missile ever to leave such a remnant/artifact.

So, in terms of location...maybe. In terms of proving that this was a missile launch, it is still lacking. The OP did a fine job though.


reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:14 PM by JayinAR
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer



Woah...
Yeah, we need some clarification on that one.
Surely it was just a typo though.
Otherwise the data wouldn't have matched with the reports like it did.

That would throw everything out quite a bit.


reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:17 PM by Gordi The Drummer
reply to post by JayinAR



Yeah, I really hope so, because everything else does seem to "fit" very well, regardless of what actually made the spiral formation. The rest of the data as calculated, does seem to indicate an object, travelling along the likely path of the Russian missile launch (test or otherwise!)
G


reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:17 PM by JayinAR
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry



The only thing that is lacking, insofar as I can tell, is the speed.
If you can show that the thing isn't a rocket because it was moving too slowly, then by all means, go ahead.

For myself, it appears that you have about a 90% (just a number off my head) probability that this was in fact a missile.

But, as I said, by all means... Go ahead.


reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:21 PM by JayinAR
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry



Furthermore, your "buddies" doesn't cut it.
I have a few engineering buddies as well. And we've spoken about this.
One of the reasons I have never questioned the missile theory.


reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:41 PM by realityabc
reply to post by tauristercus



Your conclusion that the spiral event was not triggered by a 3rd stage failure or malfunction of the Russian rocket is supported by photos of the spiral itself. If the spiral were generated by a spinning object at its center, this should be apparent in differences in phase at the center, since all photos would not have been taken at exactly the same phase of the spiral. However, if one compares different photos of the spiral, all seem to show the same phase. This indicates that the generator of the spiral was not rotating, and is more consistent with the use of some kind of projector.



reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 01:42 PM by 100thmunky
reply to post by tauristercus



That was maybe the best post I have read on ATS in a long while. You just can't argue with science. What I particularly liked was the fact that you were prepared to re-visit and correct an earlier post in light of new information, and that this re-working of your theory has led to possible visual proof of next generation technology being tested. Giving you a big thumbs up man, much respect!


reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:01 PM by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by JayinAR


Well, obviously, I can neither prove nor disprove this theory. But, I did post some links slightly before your reply to me.

The first one is the most sound and reputable link as far as I'm concerned. I am still looking for a source that is pretty hard to debate. As soon as I find it, I will provide it for you.


reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:02 PM by JollyLlama
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter



[color=Red]You didn't even read the entire thread did you? Once it got to the math you clicked back over to the porn tab, rubbed one out then posted someone else opinion you read on an earlier thread?[/color]

His evidence, which any intellect would admit, is thorough and deserves scrutiny. Why are you so obsessed with HARRP and other atmospheric heaters? His evidence should you actually choose to examine it does not "jump on media bandwagon" as you stated. He explains that this is possibly new technology, not a failed missile launch but possible a successful one. He is giving you an alternative to the "Official statement" and your assumptions that EISCAT is responsible, which I myself assumed, until reading this thread (which there is much to be done in fact checking ie: math).

You clearly don't think much for yourself and therefore thrive on disinfo, and probably whatever you think is cool, must be the truth. Why don't you go back to the Aliens & UFO's thread, where highly credible evidence is rarely presented and you're elementary comment would be better suited. No, I am not saying he is right. I am saying that WE have no evidence to say he isn't.


Without data you are just another person with an opinion.


reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:38 PM by kiwifoot
reply to post by tauristercus




Well mate, I have to take my hat off and ask you to stand up for a round of applause.

The thread was brilliant. sound reasoning and well presented.

The maths was easy to follow for anyone with high school trig and laid out in a way that even for those without a maths background, they could follow and understand. Making the information understandable has been expertly accomplished my good man!

I'm sold on your conclusions, am convinced of the rigidity of your figures and agree with your assertions...now if you could just let me know what the hell it was!!!

All the best mate, Kiwifoot!

Oh I almost forgot, STARRED and for damn sure FLAGGED bud!





[edit on 1-2-2010 by kiwifoot]


reply posted on 1-2-2010 @ 02:41 PM by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry



Thank you. I'm reviewing your links now.

EDIT TO ADD

Well after further review I'm still holding on to my notion that the missile theory is the best one out there.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by PhotonEffect


Here's a few...
docs.google.com...

Another take on the same thing...
www.examiner.com... ss-destruction

www.youtube.com...


Again, thank you for the links.

The first one was probably your best one, but I have issues with some of the writers assumptions in his analysis.

Your second link doesn't work for some reason.

And the third one, well,... David Wilcock I find hard to believe most of the time. I would be hard pressed to take a lot of what he says all that seriously quite honestly.

With that said it seems to me that a lot of the basis of assumption about this spiral is taken from photographs which used a longer exposure time, which seemingly enhanced the spiral effect and maybe made it look larger and more magnificent then it actually was...and perhaps has allowed for some over extended presumptions

However I've noticed that when watching the videos of this event, the spiral doesn't appear as dramatic in its scope...

[edit on 1-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



Starship Enterprise could be a reality by 2032, engineer says
  Posted 14 days ago with 77 member flags
TV Networks Say You\'re Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials
  Posted 1 days ago with 24 member flags
I want to build a free energy generator! Suggestions?
  Posted 16 days ago with 20 member flags
World’s longest-running experiment now with webcam
  Posted 15 days ago with 19 member flags
Schoolboy \'genius\' solves puzzles posed by Sir Isaac Newton
  Posted 1 days ago with 18 member flags
Bye Bye Co2 and global warming
  Posted 6 days ago with 16 member flags
Big Oil Vs. Plasma Battery Technology - Guess who is winning?
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags