Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

Originally posted by shagreen heart
as much as i love being right, i love being wrong equally.

Me too. Does any body want to touch my live nuke theory from page 7? If you guy's disagree I wish you might let me know why or why not? I might not know a thing about ICBM's, but I really do like to learn.

Originally posted by timewalker

Originally posted by shagreen heart
as much as i love being right, i love being wrong equally.

Me too. Does any body want to touch my live nuke theory from page 7? If you guy's disagree I wish you might let me know why or why not? I might not know a thing about ICBM's, but I really do like to learn.

oh i'll touch it.

in the link i posted, the translated paraphrasing of the video postulates that what the chinese witnessed in the sky was russia getting rid of it's nuclear payload and launching the missles into space but not detonating the warheads.

note: all crEDIT to italkyoulisten's linked thread

[edit on 1-2-2010 by shagreen heart]

reply to post by shagreen heart

From your thread

1988 was near the end of the cold war between the US and USSR, and the footage is of a Russian rocket. He says that the Russians were trying to get rid of their nuclear stockpile so they were launching rockets into the sky and exploding them without exploding the warhead.

But from what I am reading black hole seems more like a detonation of the nuke. If you see the 2007 Russian rocket explosion recorded in space, on my pg. 7 post, from what I understand that is what a solid fuel rocket would do.

Originally posted by timewalker

For a nuclear explosion, the fireball would radiate mainly in the x-ray and ultraviolet, which are not visible to the eye, although the visible part of the radiation would produce a blue-white flash. The expansion speed would be many hundreds or thousands of times faster than for a chemical explosion, so that the time scale would be less than a millisecond. All the material near the source would be vaporized, so there would be no fragments.

Mad Scientist: Explosions in Space

Thanks

reply to post by JayinAR


Well, I made more than one statement in my post but for you to regard it as just one simple thought, well, let that be your prerogative.



reply to post by schrodingers dog


Are you familiar with hyperbole? I'm not using my exaggeration in probability to prove a scientific fact now am I?



reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Yes, it is funny how some of these people can even claim to believe in any conspiracy whatsoever when they take the word of a government body at face value based on faith alone.




reply to post by _kuma_


Do you have any evidence that is WAS a missile? Besides what some guy in the Russian government SAID SO? What gives them any more credibility to offering truth. You, me, and just about everyone else knows the representative from the Russian government just as much as we know "some guy on the interwebs".





Go ahead, whether it be tauristercus, the almighty Phage *bow bow, grovel grovel*, or some random poster - I dare any of you. I DARE YOU to provide some kind, ANY KIND of evidence that this was a missile besides what some people said. How many eye witnesses saw a missile? And forgive me for beating a dead horse, but I have YET to see any evidence of a missile causing even a remotely similar scenario besides people grabbing some pics with a few glowing spots and claiming its the same thing.

I rest my case.

After looking more closely at the image from Skjervoy I have changed my opinion about location of the spiral. While other images make it difficult to get a very accurate bearing for the spiral, I think this one is different.

The ferry dock at Skjervoy is located on the northern part of the harbor. Using the mountains, a bearing of about 104º is found. This is consistent with the area in which the OP places the spiral.

reply to post by gwydionblack


I would have to say, when you see the corkscrew in the Gate Photo, it looks like something that would be created by a missile, but it would be a missile with some new twists in its guidance system.

The angle calculated by taking the Church into consideration makes a good point that this in the direction of the White Sea.

In addition, Russia had given notice that they would be test firing a missile in that time window before this event. Combine these two together and that is strong evidence that this was the result of a missile test.

reply to post by poet1b


I'm not eliminating the missile as a possibility. I am simply trying to get people to deny ignorance and stop assuming that it was with the evidence being "just because it is the easiest to wrap my mind around."

This is just stupid logic and probably the reason so many lies are gotten away with in this day and age, simply because so many people take absolutely everything at face value and fail to question everything, especially the things that stand out as blatantly suspicious.

I swear, if a UFO landed on the white house lawn and a bunch of little green men came out, the government could tell everyone it was just a military test and 90% of them would just believe it.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by gwydionblack]

reply to post by gwydionblack


So, you are implying that you think this wasn't Government related... and further implying with your "on the Whitehouse Lawn" comments that you belive this was a UFO.

That's cool.

I don't buy it because mathematical analysis reveals that it was precisely what the Russians said it was.
Only, the Russians predicted it.

reply to post by JayinAR


Everything you just said was absolutely wrong. Seriously... what is wrong with you? Did you just make that up?

Do you mind showing me a post where I have stated my position of what I thought it was? No that's right, you can't. Would you like to know why? Because I'm not so vein to believe that I have all the answers, and I'm not so stupid as to believe what others say with out SUBSTANTIAL proof. The only thing I am willing to agree on as pretty much fact, is the "origin" of the visible spiral. I believe the OP made that information very clear to everyone.

What he failed to mention is that the belief that it was a rocket was and will only remain to be simply his opinion. However, the people will continue to jump on this data like it somehow proves the existence of a rocket at the place when, as I stated many times now, THERE IS NO SUCH PROOF.

And your comments about me "believing it was a UFO" are utterly ridiculous and ludicrous, and you are simply placing words in my mouth. I was using a contrived example to state how naive and sheep like some people are to the 'almighty' word of the government.

As far as your statement concerning the "mathematical data" to prove that this was a missile - I already stated the challenge to everyone. If you have some kind of proof that I don't have access to then by all means, feel free to provide for everyone to see.


However, if you are simply going to continue putting words into my mouth, then feel free to simply not reply, because I could live without any more nonsense.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by gwydionblack]

Star and Flag!

I love it when members put a lot of time and research into their posts...Op, you are a prime example of what makes this site so great!!!

Keep up the good work!

i think it was articuno throwing an ice beam.Call me crazy but it sounds pretty obvious


Mod Note: Please stay on Topic – Review This Link.

[edit on Mon Feb 1 2010 by Jbird]

reply to post by gwydionblack


If I misunderstood what you were saying then please accept my sincere apologies.
But I doubt I did.

What I took contention with initially was your claim that 1999 times out of 2000 mathematics prove inapplicable in the real world.

That is very odd to me. In fact, it is downright wrong. In the engineering world this would be laughed out of a room, and that is a "fact."

Furthermore, you showed your frustration that people weren't denying your particular brand of ignorance by exasperating that if a UFO landed on the Whitehouse Lawn that they would claim it was the Government.

Honestly dude, it is hard to guage where you are coming from, but I can feel reasonably certain it isn't a mathematical discipline.


Once again, apologies if I am out of line.

reply to post by JayinAR

I swear, if a UFO landed on the white house lawn and a bunch of little green men came out, the government could tell everyone it was just a military test and 90% of them would just believe it.

There you have it, so it is easier to see what I said so that you might read it. The scenario is exactly the same as this scenario. Something happens that is difficult to explain, government takes responsibility, and people pretend like all the questions are answered. That is exactly what happened in this place.

And I never said that mathematics had no appliance in the "real world". I was referring to THIS situation and the fact that you can't use mathematics to PROVE there was a missile. Mathematics cannot be used to prove something exists with no evidence, at least not yet. Maybe in the future we will figure out that capability, but not quite yet.



It shouldn't be hard to gauge where I am coming from because I have blatantly stated my argument in three separate posts now and I am STILL awaiting some kind of proof besides words from a government body that a missile even existed in this scenario.

reply to post by gwydionblack


Oh, in that case you shouldn't expect any proof.
The OP was kind enough to qualify that in his initial post.

Maybe you should re-read it.

[paraphasing]

Summary

yadda yadda yadda... With a high degree of probability

yadda yadda yadda


[/paraphrasing]

At any rate, I apologize for the confusion.
But you did make the 1999 out of 2000 remark. Maybe that is where I misunderstood. I'll re-read that part.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by JayinAR]

reply to post by JayinAR


The following was included in the FIRST of my posts in this topic:

Of course, OP, you stated that it was only in high probability that it was a missile, however, I urge everybody not to simple change their opinions on THAT opinion of yours. This in no way proves the missile theory whatsoever but only leaves it on the table as a viable option.

As for what I believe, I believe that too many ifs and maybes went into the cauldron with it to be sheer coincidence, the same way I look at all viable conspiracy theories. All I ask is that people don't close their minds off to possibility as it seems so many have already chosen to do.

I hate to quote myself, but you seem to leave me no choice. You seem to be ignorant to everything I am saying and have a nack for TRYING to put words into my mouth. However, I have dealt with that before and I can live with it.



What I can't live with... is that fact that people keep on nitpicking what I am saying and avoiding the whole damn point. Common practice I know. The OP states nowhere that he provides proof that is was a missile but - AND THIS IS THE BIIIIIIIGGGG BUT-

You have countless posters on here saying [paraphrasing] "I knew it was a missile all along" or "This only proves that it was a missile" and that statement is wrong, wrong, wrong.




WRONG!


DENY.
IGNORANCE.

reply to post by gwydionblack


No, it doesn't prove anything.
It points to it with a very high degree of probability.
A very high degree.

Deny ignorance.

Edit to add:

Quote: "Do not do like so many others have tried to do and relate the entire physical world to mathematics because 1999 times out of 2000, the limitations of human mathematical calculations have been challenged and been flat out wrong."

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

You were saying?

[edit on 1-2-2010 by JayinAR]

[edit on 1-2-2010 by JayinAR]

reply to post by JayinAR


Anyway, moving on. I'm done unintentionally hijacking this topic because of one person that likes to be a smart arse. After all this is the internet, you are a dime a dozen.

Guess what? I heard from an eye witness that it was actually an invisible dragon doing cartwheels through the air, blowing flames into a spiral formation. Oh yeah, he works for the government of the International Republic of Magical Creatures so his word MUST be true.

After all, that statement holds JUST as much probability as a missile and just as much proof.

reply to post by gwydionblack


www.merriam-webster.com...

If you go there, you can learn the definitions of probability and proof.
Also, I edited my last post for ya. It appears we were typing them up at the same time.
It deals with your 1999 out of 2000 comments.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by JayinAR]

reply to post by gwydionblack
I for one agree with you. Even though I posted a long reply about a missile, that is my idea of just one possibility. (see my signature) I am not convinced by some trigonometry and Russia retracting their initial statement only to give an "official" statement by an anonymous source. I do know this, the usual suspects are here, and that just reinforces to me not to believe the "official" story. So hats off to you, there's courage in your conviction.

WoW. This is some very good research along with pics. Props man. This is some great info to observe.