Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 8
86
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


p.s. The angle you think the missile traveled is incorrect on your last topic... and this topic.
I'd like to see some evidence to back that assertion, because the triangulation the OP used seemed rock solid to me. I'm no ballistics scientist tho, so I'm just hoping to learn something from those who have a grasp of this kind of stuff.




posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Yeah, the maths for that is perfect. The trajectory was calculated to start in the same area as the navigational warning, then through the corridor described in the same warning, on to the missile test grounds on the Kamchatka peninsula, all entirely lining up with every single photo, video, and eye-witness account.

The only maths in this thread that is even possibly slightly dubious in nature, and I know Tauristercus agrees with me (please correct me if I'm wrong), is the 108 km measurement, which could definitely use some cross-referencing with other measurements to ensure it's accuracy.

Where the missile came from, the route it took, where it was headed, and the altitudes along the line, have all been established.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

I'm more than open to anyone wishing to reanalyze my entire work, calculations and results. If the 108 kms is grossly inaccurate, then please speak up and say why !
Well, as I asked earlier, I'm wondering if the 108km is the distance travelled over ground or the actual linear distance travelled through the air/orbit. Seems to me that the thing could have been moving even faster than your estimate, if you used a ground distance for your calculations?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Yeah, the maths for that is perfect. The trajectory was calculated to start in the same area as the navigational warning, then through the corridor described in the same warning, on to the missile test grounds on the Kamchatka peninsula, all entirely lining up with every single photo, video, and eye-witness account.

Hahahaha, is my face red ... guess what I never thought of doing ?
Compare my results with the above mentioned navigational warning and the trajectory corridor ... duhhhhh

So thanks for that "save face"




The only maths in this thread that is even possibly slightly dubious in nature, and I know Tauristercus agrees with me (please correct me if I'm wrong), is the 108 km measurement, which could definitely use some cross-referencing with other measurements to ensure it's accuracy.

It's not so much that I think I've managed to introduce a hidden "stuffup" in how I obtained that 108 km measurement (though anything is possible) as I've checked and rechecked until I'm blue in the face ... what bothers me the most is that if we do use that value, we end up with such a mind-boggling and hard to believe speed ... with NO way to possibly explain it if by chance the 108 km is correct.
We DEFINITELY (as davesidious rightly says) need some alternative way to either verify or disprove that distance value.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by tauristercus
 
Well, as I asked earlier, I'm wondering if the 108km is the distance travelled over ground or the actual linear distance travelled through the air/orbit. Seems to me that the thing could have been moving even faster than your estimate, if you used a ground distance for your calculations?


Sorry, I must have missed your earlier post with this question ... my apologies.

Yes, the 108 km distance is purely a ground measurement as I haven't figured out yet how to get GE to calculate an above ground distance between 2 points


So you raise a very valid point !



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Well, there's something for you to do now
It seems, though, that they line up perfectly. Please, oh GE master, tell me if I'm wrong!

As for the measurements, I'm glad we're in agreement. As horrible as this might sound, a mistake in your calculations is far more likely than a new Russian missile that travels twice as fast as anything else. I'd love you to be right. It'd be so fantastic I'd be walking on sunshine, but if we don't get there via critical thought, we might as well not bother. I'm glad you're on board



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Well, there's something for you to do now
It seems, though, that they line up perfectly. Please, oh GE master, tell me if I'm wrong!

As for the measurements, I'm glad we're in agreement. As horrible as this might sound, a mistake in your calculations is far more likely than a new Russian missile that travels twice as fast as anything else. I'd love you to be right. It'd be so fantastic I'd be walking on sunshine, but if we don't get there via critical thought, we might as well not bother. I'm glad you're on board


Well, without meaning too, we seem to have generated an entirely different "head scratcher" besides the obvious "how was the spiral formed" - and hopefully this new one will be a heck of a lot easier to resolve.
I agree with you that something somewhere MUST be screwy with either the trajectory OR the distance to get such a wacked out speed.
But then again, haven't the Russians been touting just how good this new generation of missile will be and how it can penetrate any missile shield system ? Maybe they've strapped on a monstrous turbo-charger

(Not serious, of course !)

Anyway, just gone midnight over here so I'll call it a day ... will also give lots further thought as to how to track down the error (if it exists).

Catch you all later ....



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Indeed, this is perplexing - something doesn't add up.

Just for the record, in case EM or one of his followers thinks you're being serious, the new abilities of this rocket are maneuverability (but no mention of a top speed increase), the warhead bus itself, and its countermeasures.

We can pick this up tomorrow
Again, great work.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 





So, do we have a 2nd "scientific" confirmation ? No Do I PERSONALLY think I need it ? No Do I consider that 108 km distance value to be accurate ? Yes





I agree with you that something somewhere MUST be screwy with either the trajectory OR the distance to get such a wacked out speed.


But a page back you were sure. You also showed that even if you were 50% off, you would end up with dubious speeds still.

Seems like your backpedaling now, adapting the evidence to the popular answer.

Just an observation.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


I have another question, you posted this in one of your earlier threads:



We are now being told that this particular Bulava test failed because of problems associated with the third stage burn. Now this implies that until the 3rd stage problems, that the 1st and 2nd stages completed their burns nominally which should have lifted the Bulava to an altitude of at least 500 kms.


I don't know if this altitude is factual, but the spiral happened because of third stage problems it is said.

So at 500 kms or above.

Are you aware that, in your previous thread you calculated the altitude of the whole spiral event to never surpass 453 kms, with the center, were the missile would be, at max 296.5 kms.

The whole event takes place below the third stage level of a Bulava missile, according to your own post.

Am I missing something here?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





It would be nice to have the timestamps for the images from Skjervoy to get an accurate timespan . I think the video you used only captured the end of the incident. Various descriptions indicate that it lasted quite a bit longer than 10 seconds.



Are you not paying attention? Or is this on purpose?

It was pretty clear the OP got the 10 seconds by using the segment of the spiral that was caught on video, together with the observation locations.

Can't really argue with that. It doesn't matter the event was longer, knowing the speed within those 10 seconds is valuable and accurate information.

So let's see, Phage asks a redundant question, again ignoring info posted in the OP, and gets starred.

Tauresticus explains very clearly, no stars.

Groupie love.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

Even though we don't have timestamps for the Skjervoy images, something is apparent. Between images 2 ("Spiral 2") and 3 ("Dissipating") the photographer has relocated himself (the gate is no longer in view and water of the harbor fills the bottom of the frame). It's hard to be sure but it looks like he may have passed through the gate to the pier. In any case it would seem it would likely have taken more than 10 seconds to make the relocation.


Using the video from Tromso is problematic. It's possible that your bearing from Tromso is not quite accurate. From your Part 1 post you have obtained only 1 data point for the bearing (the Arctic Cathedral). Unlike Skjervoy, we don't really know where the camera is located except that it is generally to the west of the cathedral. Because the camera is relatively close to the cathedral a difference in camera location of only 100-200 meters would make enough of a difference in the bearing to place the spiral at the end of the track you have established rather than the middle. I don't think we are seeing the travel from "Spiral 2" to "Dissipation". I think we are just seeing the portion of the track very near "Dissipation".

This might be a good time to point out another factor. By using Google Earth to plot your bearings you are using a great circle. This works nicely if you are navigating between two points but if you want to find the true location of a point a distance away I think you should be using rhumblines. Over a great circle the bearing is constantly changing in order to follow the curve of the Earth. For example, the local bearing from Skjervoy to "Spiral 1" is about 104º but if we follow the great circle drawn by Google Earth when we get there the bearing is now about 133º. A rhumbline follows the initial bearing, it gives you a true straight line from point A to point B. Using rhumblines will place the trajectory in a more northern location.

[edit on 2/9/2010 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Fantastic information. Thanks for that, Phage. Hopefully Tauristercus can get back to us on that one and see how that changes the measured speed of the rocket.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


A "Nobel Torsion Message" Over Norway?

If everyone interested in this Norway situation has not read Hoagland's work to date, you are missing out. You all need to read part three of his research into this anomaly.

He has brought all of this to a whole other level of theory, and where it goes and what it ties into is both alarming and scary if true on any account.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Using the video from Tromso is problematic. It's possible that your bearing from Tromso is not quite accurate. From your Part 1 post you have obtained only 1 data point for the bearing (the Arctic Cathedral). Unlike Skjervoy, we don't really know where the camera is located except that it is generally to the west of the cathedral. Because the camera is relatively close to the cathedral a difference in camera location of only 100-200 meters would make enough of a difference in the bearing to place the spiral at the end of the track you have established rather than the middle.


This totally irrelevant.

Tauresticus estimated the direction of the spiral from Tromso, pretty accuratelly from GE, together with the established views from the other sites, and the map with the crossing lines of sight he was able to ACCURATELY establish the bearing from Tromso for Spiral fase 1.

He used other pics to establish the bearings for other fases of the spiral, and only used the Tromso footage again for providing the amount of time between certain fases.

The Tromso bearing's accuracy is irrelevant in this case, cause he used it only to pinpoint the Spiral fase 1, while his speed calculations were derived from Spiral fase 2 onwards.

So the possible inacurracy of his Tromso bearing, has no effect on his speed calculation, since it was completely derived from the other locations' pics.

At least that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.






[edit on 9-2-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Even though we don't have timestamps for the Skjervoy images, something is apparent. Between images 2 ("Spiral 2") and 3 ("Dissipating") the photographer has relocated himself (the gate is no longer in view and water of the harbor fills the bottom of the frame). It's hard to be sure but it looks like he may have passed through the gate to the pier. In any case it would seem it would likely have taken more than 10 seconds to make the relocation.


Totally irrelevant to the OP's speed calculations, again.

He took the ten seconds timetable from the moving Tromso footage, there is just no way to dispute this duration, especially not by looking at still pics and speculating about possible timetables.

Why would you, when you can clearly see the amount of time in the Tromso footage?

Are you doing this on purpose Phage?

I know you prefer to ignore me, or even have me on ignore, but I think I've made a few points you should respond to, you are obliged by your reputation, don't you think so?

edit to add; Besides, the OP also pointed out this:




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.




[edit on 9-2-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by arizonascott
 


His first two parts were fantastic examples of analysis. The third part was an absolute joke. I don't know if he was hit on the head between parts II and III, but his critical thinking went right out the _ It's an absolute joke. He starts making all kinds of baseless assumptions, as if what he discovered in parts I & II didn't fit into his bizarre world, so he had to make massive leaps of faith to get them to work. He stops providing evidence after a while, and just spurts out that things must be, without showing how. It's rather sad.

reply to post by Point of No Return
 


It's somewhat accurate, but to pretend it's up there with a theodolite-wielding surveyor is folly at best. Tauristercus has already said he needs more data to be sure of what he's discovered. I'm sure he'll back me up on that one when he gets back on ATS in the morning. There is absolutely no way that from just a few photos, a YouTube video, and albeit-informed guesses in GE are enough to accurately map the speed of an invisible object in space. It's a good start - enough to get some ideas, but not enough to conclusively put this to bed.

If we don't exercise total critical thought during this process, we might as well give up and say it was unicorn farts.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 





If we don't exercise total critical thought during this process, we might as well give up and say it was unicorn farts.


Am I not being critical? Sofar, most of the arguments against the accuracy of his math, have been irrelevant or false, as far as I can tell.

Besides, the biggest part of the math is from the previous thread, wich was celebrated by your big homie as proof for the Bulava missile theory.

From the same pics, youtube vid etc.

Also, I think the OP has quite a margin for error, without the possible deviations in accuracy, I think the calculated speed would still be remarkably high.

I'm also curious about the OP's reaction to the fact that he established the spiral's max altitude, below the Bulava's 3rd stage.









[edit on 9-2-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by tauristercus
 





So, do we have a 2nd "scientific" confirmation ? No Do I PERSONALLY think I need it ? No Do I consider that 108 km distance value to be accurate ? Yes





I agree with you that something somewhere MUST be screwy with either the trajectory OR the distance to get such a wacked out speed.


But a page back you were sure. You also showed that even if you were 50% off, you would end up with dubious speeds still.

Seems like your backpedaling now, adapting the evidence to the popular answer.

Just an observation.


I would agree. It seems like he's trying to maintain friendships and cushioning his information for those who are attempting to bully him into "new findings."

Here is his initial assessment and quote:

Putting this into perspective ... as of 2006, the Topol SS 27 was rated as THE fastest missile in the world with an estimated speed of 10.800 mph (17,280 kph).


For anything to travel from Kapustny to Balkash in 24 minutes, it had to fly at a speed of three miles a second. That’s 180 miles a minute or 10,800 miles an hour. If the reports were indeed true, the Topol RS 12 or the Topol SS 27, as it is known in military circles around the world, had to be the fastest thing man has ever seen.



So, the collapse and dissipation of the spiral occurred over a distance of 108 kms and apparently at twice the speed of the fastest reported Russian missile !

Those of you who have read my previous thread as well, will by now clearly understand why I state that in my belief, even though a Russian missile most probably was somehow involved in the Norway Spiral event, the evidence is stacking up very quickly against the popular belief/explanation that it was all caused by nothing more than a fuel leak in the 3rd stage.

Something else, something much more significant transpired on that day ... and again, from my point of view, it was NOT a failure as reported by the Russians and the media but more likely a SUCCESSFUL test of new technology, either propulsion or weaponry.


I understand that he wants to maintain his friendship with the guys who perceive themselves as "popular," but, one should stick with their guns if they expect to maintain their credibility as a researcher.

Also, this is the third thread done by the OP, each with different results. Although, much of the math is still based on the second thread, I'm not sure how many more of these will pop up and how many different assessments he will attempt to deliver. Personally, I think that he is a thorough researcher, but, with much of the math being the same, I'm not sure how many more conclusions that can possibly be derived from the same information. In effect, we're never going to know exactly what caused this spiral. But, I hold firm to my initial belief. It was not "solely" the work of a missile.





new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join