Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the analysis of an event (Part 2)

page: 2
86
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


No, no he doesn't. There is no evidence anywhere in the world that remote viewing works, just hearsay and people wanting to sell books and courses.

Aaah who am I kidding - if someone believes in remote viewing, they're not doing so through rational thought.

Back to the topic at hand, sorry.




posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


I have to admit you got me thinking regarding potential errors creeping in and their impact on the velocity result I obtained earlier regarding the spiral collapse event.

Naturally I'm sticking to the distance of 108 kms from the start to the end of the collapse as I have absolute confidence in this value.

However, what would happen to that incredible value of 38,800 km/h if my time estimate was in error considerably ? So lets experiment ...


I originally estimated, and used, a value of 10 secs ... now we'll adjust that time value just incase I had stuffed up badly reading the second hand on my watch ... of course we won't make the time any less as that would push an already incredible speed value into truly astronomical ones ... so instead lets make the time gradually longer and see what effect that has on the speed.

Here's a table of results:



We can see that even if I was out by 50%, in other words, instead of 10 seconds, it was actually 15 secs, we still obtain an incredible speed of 25,920 km/h.

In fact, the only way to reduce my calculated speed values to even get close to the estimated maximum speed of the fastest Russian missile, I would have had to use a value of 22 secs ... a full 12 seconds longer than in the video clip.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Just wanted to say, great thread. Maybe somebody might figure this out one day.

I wanted to apologize for jumping the gun on the last one for all the members to see. I was a bit hasty. After seeing the accusations and rebuttals, and going back and really looking. I was wrong to do it. Tony Spell jumping in right after that really freaked me out. Any way I will be the big person and admit when I was wrong. Hope you will accept.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Hi tauristercus, have you determined the frequency of oscillation within the

spiral? Are the spirals equal as they spread outward or do the spirals become

wider spaced as they go outward away from the center or vortex? Was there

any noise attributed to the spiral? Were any photos or videos taken from the

other side or from the sides of the spiral?


This looks like a sonic blast that created the ripple or spiral. The center of

the vortex of the spiral photo reminds me of the long tongue, inside a bell

housing known as a clapper. ^Y^


[edit on 7-2-2010 by amari]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Fair enough. I think I'm still unsure as to how you've positioned the parts of the spiral in Google Earth, though. Could you run through that again? I know you have before, but I'd like to get a clearer explanation. I feel that might have some bearing on your measurements.

reply to post by amari
 


Sound needs a medium through which to travel. There is no such medium in space. So there could not possibly be a sonic anything involved.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Was this spiral determined to be in outer space or within the upper

atmospheres on Earth during the incident? If this was in fact hundreds of

kilometers into space how was this distance of the spiral determined from the

Earth's surface?



[edit on 7-2-2010 by amari]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by timewalker
Just wanted to say, great thread. Maybe somebody might figure this out one day.

I wanted to apologize for jumping the gun on the last one for all the members to see. I was a bit hasty. After seeing the accusations and rebuttals, and going back and really looking. I was wrong to do it. Tony Spell jumping in right after that really freaked me out. Any way I will be the big person and admit when I was wrong. Hope you will accept.


Consider it never happened ... and thanks for this post


At least you were in a way doing the right thing if you suspected that something underhanded may have been going on ... I'm sure that in a similar instance I may have been the one to jump up and down.

Anyway, we all have to do our best to ensure we keep each other honest on this forum ... especially considering the incredible amount of "facts, information and knowledge" being presented by many of us as "gospel" !

Ok, great stuff ... lets all move on now



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


If this spiral was not caused by a sonic blast then could this be electron plasma

oscillations called Langmuir waves created by magnetic plasma Flux in space?



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
May I humbly suggest 3 more areas to look at when making your analysis? I have no idea about how to go about answering the ?'s below, but someone else might....

1)If as one poster suggested, at that magnification and at the supposed distance the "rocket" would indeed be one pixel wide, how much larger is the width of each strand of the spiral (especially the beginning width most closly adjecent to the object)? Basically, it seems like the relative sizes of each might cancel the missile explanation out?

2) Assuming it IS a fluid leak, how much fuel is represented in the entire spiral, and how does that compare to the fuel carry capacity of the suspected missile?

3) Also, is each spiral strand a uniform width? I would think aerosolized particles would tend to dissipate (become visually wider) the longer they were suspended (although I admit to being unsure on how space conditions would effect this, if any). And are all the spiral strands the same opaqueness from start to finish? Should not the outmost strands be more see through, wider, and less defined than what we observe close to the source of the leak, if a leak is the source?

GREAT work, even a bit beyond me at times. Have you considered contacting a scientist or professor who would be able to give you a professional critique and help check some of your base assumptions? I think your evidence is highly suggestive, but of what?!



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Hey tauristercus, have you looked into any of Richard C. Hoagland's work? He reaaally gets into this with alot of facts and evidence that I think would really give you another credible viewpoint.

www.enterprisemission.com

On his site he has a 3 part in-depth view of the Norway Spiral I think everyone should read. Some nice evidence he puts together that I think could go hand in hand with what's in this thread.

Here is Richard talking on Coast to Coast a few days ago where he gives his conclusions of the Norway Spiral which I think is VERY interesting.

Richard C.Hoagland -C2C-AM - Part 1

Next few parts are on the right on the playlist on the site.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
It's a pleasure to read these analyses.
Maybe these types of topics will catch on, hah!



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Another solid post tauristercus.

However, I'm not so sure I agree with the premise of the first part of your argument- mainly that the object in the center of the photo that you've blown up doesn't appear to be cylindrical like we'd expect a rocket to be, and therefore it isn't a rocket. So what then would you say it is?

That photo, no matter what you do to it, proves to be virtually inconclusive and shouldn't be considered as an attempt to show that there isn't a rocket in there. I don't believe that's a fair argument here.

And once you've blown it up and reversed its color, the white blob is now open to your interpretation, which may not be all that objective
. It's no secret that you truly believe that a rocket didn't make that spiral and your looking for anything that may show this to be the case... but now it seems you're literally putting pictures under the microscope and interpreting it based on your preconceived notions...

We don't know what the nature of the "failure" was, except an indication that something abnormal occurred in the 3rd stage. It's in this 3rd stage that these types of rockets can become prone to tumbling as they reorient themselves for more precise maneuvering. With that said it can't be determined with any degree of certainty that the failure (and spiral) was the result of a fuel leak. It's a possibility but that's about it.

It did appear that there was particulate being ejected from two locations, perhaps this was from the thrusters trying to reorient the MIRV,

Have you blown up the original (non-reversed) photo to see what that yields?

Also, do you know at what point in the spirals formation that particular frame is taken from? IOW near the beginning, middle, or end of the formation of the white spiral?

If it's near the end just before the spiral blows opens, I may have a theory on what we're seeing in the center of this picture...



As for the 2nd part of your post, the speeds you've come up with certainly seem to be out of the ordinary and I wonder why that may be... I'll have to take a closer look at it.

Good post non the less.


[edit on 7-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeathTribble
3) Also, is each spiral strand a uniform width? I would think aerosolized particles would tend to dissipate (become visually wider) the longer they were suspended (although I admit to being unsure on how space conditions would effect this, if any). And are all the spiral strands the same opaqueness from start to finish? Should not the outmost strands be more see through, wider, and less defined than what we observe close to the source of the leak, if a leak is the source?


I wonder this too, and it's hard to tell. In some photos it looks like the spiral holds form and in others it looks like the outer parts become less defined and fainter.

Another question is, with the size of the spiral and the angle it seems to be to the viewers surely some of it would have reached into the atmosphere which would mean that if the spiral was made by some type of fuel then part of the spiral should change shape as it meets resistance from air and distorted by wind.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
yeah I read about this on Hoaglands site. pretty much virbatim accept he didnt go into the FIIIINE detail if the picture showing what looked like a giant uvula (spelling is off for that thing that dangles in our mouth) nice job. Finally someone else takes the guy seriously. GOod work. as soon as I figure out how to star and flag I will




I figured it out.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by JamesT.Jerk]



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by amari
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Hi tauristercus, have you determined the frequency of oscillation within the

spiral? Are the spirals equal as they spread outward or do the spirals become

wider spaced as they go outward away from the center or vortex? Was there

any noise attributed to the spiral? Were any photos or videos taken from the

other side or from the sides of the spiral?


This looks like a sonic blast that created the ripple or spiral. The center of

the vortex of the spiral photo reminds me of the long tongue, inside a bell

housing known as a clapper. ^Y^


Very good questions and considering that I'm running out of things regarding the spiral event to try and analyze, I guess I'll take a look at the rings themselves and see if anything can be deduced from their structure that may add to what we're slowly learning regarding the event.

As for pics from the OTHER side of the spiral, that would be fantastic if we could locate some ... but considering that the "other side" would be within Russia itself, I'm not holding my breath !



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Excellence!

Here, the rubber meets the road with an analysis that truly shows an interest for the truly scientific aspects of an investigation rather than a bunch of unresearched inuendo that commonly follows events such as this.

Great work, and some stuff to really tuck in. I think you have made a great case that can give insight into alternative explainatons for this event that do not agree with what 'official sources' would like us to believe.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by Violater1
reply to post by tauristercus
 



Your analysis, as usual, is impeccable.
Star and Flag.
Jokingly, the magnification looks like the inside of a mouth, with visualizing of the uvula.
Maybe G_D is yelling at us.


Thanks for that, appreciated !

And yes, the comparison to the back of the throat DID spring to mind the moment that I enlarged the image ... but I resisted from actually saying it


Sorry to burst your bubble, it is a rocket. Look harder next time, there were at least three threads with outstanding evidence to suggest this isn't anything otherworldly.

But of course by yourself opening a new thread this INSTANTLY counters all evidence ATSers worked hard on to debunk it.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Fair enough. I think I'm still unsure as to how you've positioned the parts of the spiral in Google Earth, though. Could you run through that again? I know you have before, but I'd like to get a clearer explanation. I feel that might have some bearing on your measurements.


I'm not really sure how much more I can add to what I've already posted but here's a summary ... hope it makes things somewhat clearer.

Ok, I started off by attempting to locate as many photo's as I could that gave a clear and/or detailed view of the event and that also provided some way to accurately determine the observers location within Norway when they took the pics.
Because virtually all the pics had a distinctive background (usually mountainous) which appeared in silhouette due to the approaching dawn, I then set GE to appear as it would have at 7:50am (the average time of the sightings) on the morning of 9 December. This then gave me a mountainous silhouette in GE to work with. Having determined the approximate location that a particular pic was taken at, I then painstakingly adjusted the GE background silhouette until it matched exactly the silhouette in the pic. I then used Photoshop to overlay the GE silhouette with the pic silhouette to confirm that I had an identical (or as near as made no difference) match between the two silhouettes. Once the match was confirmed, then I knew I had determined the observers location.
These silhouette "matches" were posted in my previous thread to prove that I had found the observers location.
Once I had that location, it was a simple matter within GE to extend two lines from the observer; one directly through the spirals center and the other line directly in the direction of the exhaust plume/blue spiral point ... and both lines extended sufficiently for them to reach the White Sea area. Doing identical double line "extensions" with the remaining pics eventually had all the lines within the White Sea area intersecting at 5 different locations ... these locations represented the initial exhaust plume/blue spiral; two complete spiral locations; and two locations where the spiral had begun to dissipate.
Examining the White Sea location where these lines intersected, it was immediately obvious that the 5 resulting locations appeared to be lined up ... and by drawing a line between the 1st location point (exhaust) and 5th location point (dissipated spiral), each of the 5 points fell exactly with NO DEVIATION onto this line. Furthermore, as already mentioned, extending this line in a great circle arc had it fall directly onto the Kamchatka target range on the other side of Russia. This was more than sufficient confirmation that the 5 location points within the White Sea area were in fact accurate.

Finally, I should point out most strongly that not one of the lines extending from observer location to the various spiral locations in the White Sea had to be "fudged or adjusted" to make their intersections fit onto the "trajectory path" leading to Kamchatka ... everyone of those 5 estimated locations fit perfectly and immediately onto the trajectory with no adjustments required. So the locations in the White Sea were found 1st and only later was it noticed their exact fit onto the trajectory path line.



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretbear


Sorry to burst your bubble, it is a rocket. Look harder next time, there were at least three threads with outstanding evidence to suggest this isn't anything otherworldly.

But of course by yourself opening a new thread this INSTANTLY counters all evidence ATSers worked hard on to debunk it.


Look harder, you say ????
I think it'd be perfectly fair of me to state that I have put in many, many hours of research, examination and analysis to arrive at my conclusions ... so for you to so blithely pop up and imply otherwise is to say the least ... insulting.
I wonder just how much research and analysis YOU personally have undertaken ? Could you please point me to the threads where you lay out in detail the work you undertook and most importantly, your own analysis ?



posted on Feb, 8 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by secretbear
 


You obviously haven't read the OP's thread.





new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join