Originally posted by tauristercus
Originally posted by amari
reply to post by tauristercus
Again, due to my complete ignorance, I have no idea if the missile even had such a capability and if assuming it did, whether it directly or indirectly could produced such a plasma ... whether by creating an artificial plasma around itself or making use of naturally occurring plasma at the altitude that I have determined the spiral to have existed at.
I have no idea whether such technology was even part of its design, payload or testing mode so please don't anyone think I personally am considering that it did.
This statement speaks wonders about the current state of this thread. The fact that we have no idea whether the plasma (perfect concentric circles in a spiral) could have been created by the missile technology of today is THE KEY ELEMENT to throwing the missile theory out of the window. Its all conjecture. There are currently NO EXPERTS whatsoever in the "Sky Spiral Field," and since there have only been two recorded and "known" spirals to speak of, our understanding is quite limited.
Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the analysis of an event (Part 2), page 9
privacy
reply posted on 9-2-2010 @ 02:21 PM by EvolvedMinistry
Originally posted by Point of No Return
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?
Beautiful. Bravo. However meaningless it may be...you just earned a star from my camp.
reply posted on 9-2-2010 @ 03:16 PM by EvolvedMinistry
Originally posted by arizonascott
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.
Well, I personally love the link that you provided because it provides tons of additional information that has not been speculated on. Unfortunately, it cannot be used in a scholarly sense because of its references to UFO's and 911.
I do think it is very well put together though and I find much of it to be quite enlightening.
reply posted on 9-2-2010 @ 05:48 PM by davesidious
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
There is no evidence the spiral was a plasma. None at all. It is, however, entirely congruent with rocket exhaust and leaking unburnt fuel.
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
How the hell can it be enlightening if it doesn't use rational approaches to establishing truth? I think the only thing enlightening about it is that it made you tell us just how irrational you are in believing things you want to believe, not that which is substantiated by evidence.
There is no evidence the spiral was a plasma. None at all. It is, however, entirely congruent with rocket exhaust and leaking unburnt fuel.
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
How the hell can it be enlightening if it doesn't use rational approaches to establishing truth? I think the only thing enlightening about it is that it made you tell us just how irrational you are in believing things you want to believe, not that which is substantiated by evidence.
reply posted on 9-2-2010 @ 06:30 PM by Rolci
hello. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but Cosmic Awareness has this got to say:
Question: Would there be a buildup prior to the proposed date of December 21, or would it be a “Bang! Game Over” type thing?
Cosmic Awareness: There will be a buildup to this. This Awareness has discussed this in the past. Many entities will not necessarily wait until this final event. Many will either pass through the natural death cycle or will find a vortex or another way of ascending, and then those who are left will ascend in this manner, if that is their choice. There is more, but this Awareness is leaving this for a future time.
Many will experience that new physical reality as something easily obtained and woken up into simply because they chose to go through the gateway, whatever and however the gateway presented itself, for they were aware that there would be a need to choose to go through the dimensional gateway, the vortex, the portal, and as this Awareness has already spoken in other readings. They will simply pass through the vortex and enter the new reality, but they must somehow be first and foremost aware that a choice is involved and somehow aware of that which is the ascended reality, that which would be Planet A and Ascension.
source: cosmicawareness.org...
For further clarification:
Cosmic Awareness:
Indeed, this brings this Awareness to a change of discussion. It wishes now to talk further of the extraterrestrial presence. It is seen by this Awareness that 2010 will continue to bring more and more evidence of the Galactic Federation forces, and other truths will be brought forward of the Orion/Reptilian factions. The year ends with a spectacular event which was the event of the spiral vortex seen in the skies over Norway, and although not published widely, also over the skies of China.
This was the doing of the Galactic Federation forces, a showing in the skies of the vortex, the spiral energy showing that there is something there. Many reported this event as UFO activity, and many UFOs were sighted in the region and at that particular location in Norway. The spiral vortex was shown publicly for the first time purposely by the Galactic Federation forces for the intent of showing humanity what is to come. Many who saw the spiral in the sky, the vortex in the sky, had a deep and unconscious knowing of this, and knew what it was even if it has not yet been brought to full consciousness.
These events will continue in 2010 and there will be more and more sightings, even if those sightings continue to be suppressed in the United States and not shown on the media. They will become so prevalent that there is no way that in 2010 the Powers That Be can completely block the populace from receiving this information. This is still moving toward the planned event of First Contact, and while this has always been on the agenda, and still is so for 2010, those who are the Galactic forces are content with showing themselves in bits and pieces.
source: www.cosmicawareness.org...
if you are not familiar with who the galactic federation forces are, read the Ra Material. Another name for the "confederation of planets in the service of the infinite creator". If you wanna think in terms of good and bad, they are supposed to be the good guys, as opposed to the orion group, reptilians, illuminati, whatever you know of in your reality. Not that any of the details matter. Maybe people should read stuff like Children of the law of one: the lost teachings of atlantis, and the channelings on L/L research. would be more useful.
Question: Would there be a buildup prior to the proposed date of December 21, or would it be a “Bang! Game Over” type thing?
Cosmic Awareness: There will be a buildup to this. This Awareness has discussed this in the past. Many entities will not necessarily wait until this final event. Many will either pass through the natural death cycle or will find a vortex or another way of ascending, and then those who are left will ascend in this manner, if that is their choice. There is more, but this Awareness is leaving this for a future time.
Many will experience that new physical reality as something easily obtained and woken up into simply because they chose to go through the gateway, whatever and however the gateway presented itself, for they were aware that there would be a need to choose to go through the dimensional gateway, the vortex, the portal, and as this Awareness has already spoken in other readings. They will simply pass through the vortex and enter the new reality, but they must somehow be first and foremost aware that a choice is involved and somehow aware of that which is the ascended reality, that which would be Planet A and Ascension.
source: cosmicawareness.org...
For further clarification:
Cosmic Awareness:
Indeed, this brings this Awareness to a change of discussion. It wishes now to talk further of the extraterrestrial presence. It is seen by this Awareness that 2010 will continue to bring more and more evidence of the Galactic Federation forces, and other truths will be brought forward of the Orion/Reptilian factions. The year ends with a spectacular event which was the event of the spiral vortex seen in the skies over Norway, and although not published widely, also over the skies of China.
This was the doing of the Galactic Federation forces, a showing in the skies of the vortex, the spiral energy showing that there is something there. Many reported this event as UFO activity, and many UFOs were sighted in the region and at that particular location in Norway. The spiral vortex was shown publicly for the first time purposely by the Galactic Federation forces for the intent of showing humanity what is to come. Many who saw the spiral in the sky, the vortex in the sky, had a deep and unconscious knowing of this, and knew what it was even if it has not yet been brought to full consciousness.
These events will continue in 2010 and there will be more and more sightings, even if those sightings continue to be suppressed in the United States and not shown on the media. They will become so prevalent that there is no way that in 2010 the Powers That Be can completely block the populace from receiving this information. This is still moving toward the planned event of First Contact, and while this has always been on the agenda, and still is so for 2010, those who are the Galactic forces are content with showing themselves in bits and pieces.
source: www.cosmicawareness.org...
if you are not familiar with who the galactic federation forces are, read the Ra Material. Another name for the "confederation of planets in the service of the infinite creator". If you wanna think in terms of good and bad, they are supposed to be the good guys, as opposed to the orion group, reptilians, illuminati, whatever you know of in your reality. Not that any of the details matter. Maybe people should read stuff like Children of the law of one: the lost teachings of atlantis, and the channelings on L/L research. would be more useful.
reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 12:51 AM by tauristercus
reply to post by davesidious
Back again !
Ok, had a bit of a think overnight as to where the "discrepancy" (assuming any even exists) could be in my determination of that 108 km segment.
Obviously the time value of 10 secs isn't really up for debate as its on the Tromso vid timestamp and the second hand on my trusty watch agrees.
So, what does that leave ? not much except the estimated trajectory line running across the White Sea area. To establish that trajectory, I had used 7 data points (observer locations) to work it out and one would tend to assume with that many data points that confidence would be high.
Anyway, have just spent a few hours going over all those locations and recreating the trajectory path ... and end result was identical ... no obvious errors.
As far as I was concerned, the trajectory path estimate WAS accurate but to test that assumption, I decided to use yet another data point that I had not used before ... in this case a good observation from Lysnes in Norway ... again, except for Poultsa in Sweden, why are ALL the observations ONLY from Norway ?
The idea behind using Lysnes was to treat it as an independent observation from the rest and see how it fits into the overall pattern. Perhaps this observation might NOT fit and I'd therefore have some idea of where to look further.
Ok, heres the Lysnes observation:
Here is the Equivalent GE view as at 7:50am on 9 December 2009 with track lines added that point to the Spiral2 and Exhaust plume locations in the White Sea.
Here I've overlayed the original pic and the GE equivalent ... what can I say except "spot on" !
And this is the overview from Lysnes to the trajectory path using the same track lines as in the image above.
So, rather than highlighting a possible error in the way I've processed the observer locations to create the trajectory path ... this additional 8th data point has instead confirmed that the trajectory as far as can be tested by myself appears to be correct.
The speed mystery continues ...
Back again !
Ok, had a bit of a think overnight as to where the "discrepancy" (assuming any even exists) could be in my determination of that 108 km segment.
Obviously the time value of 10 secs isn't really up for debate as its on the Tromso vid timestamp and the second hand on my trusty watch agrees.
So, what does that leave ? not much except the estimated trajectory line running across the White Sea area. To establish that trajectory, I had used 7 data points (observer locations) to work it out and one would tend to assume with that many data points that confidence would be high.
Anyway, have just spent a few hours going over all those locations and recreating the trajectory path ... and end result was identical ... no obvious errors.
As far as I was concerned, the trajectory path estimate WAS accurate but to test that assumption, I decided to use yet another data point that I had not used before ... in this case a good observation from Lysnes in Norway ... again, except for Poultsa in Sweden, why are ALL the observations ONLY from Norway ?
The idea behind using Lysnes was to treat it as an independent observation from the rest and see how it fits into the overall pattern. Perhaps this observation might NOT fit and I'd therefore have some idea of where to look further.
Ok, heres the Lysnes observation:
Here is the Equivalent GE view as at 7:50am on 9 December 2009 with track lines added that point to the Spiral2 and Exhaust plume locations in the White Sea.
Here I've overlayed the original pic and the GE equivalent ... what can I say except "spot on" !
And this is the overview from Lysnes to the trajectory path using the same track lines as in the image above.
So, rather than highlighting a possible error in the way I've processed the observer locations to create the trajectory path ... this additional 8th data point has instead confirmed that the trajectory as far as can be tested by myself appears to be correct.
The speed mystery continues ...
reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 01:06 AM by tauristercus
reply to post by Phage
Good point Phage and one I hadn't considered ... so of I went in search of confirmation or repudiation
I found a great site at
www.marinewaypoints.com...
that uses a calculator to determine the great circle distances between any 2 cities ... perfect !
So I tried a few examples:
Calculator: Paris to Moscow = 2490 kms
GE: Paris to Rome = 2490 kms
Calculator: Moscow to Budapest = 1569 kms
GE: Moscow to Budapest = 1569 kms
Calculator: Luxembourg to Berlin = 602 kms
GE: Luxembourg to Berlin = 602 kms
The above reinforces my confidence in using GE's distance calculation tool.
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.
Good point Phage and one I hadn't considered ... so of I went in search of confirmation or repudiation
I found a great site at
www.marinewaypoints.com...
that uses a calculator to determine the great circle distances between any 2 cities ... perfect !
So I tried a few examples:
Calculator: Paris to Moscow = 2490 kms
GE: Paris to Rome = 2490 kms
Calculator: Moscow to Budapest = 1569 kms
GE: Moscow to Budapest = 1569 kms
Calculator: Luxembourg to Berlin = 602 kms
GE: Luxembourg to Berlin = 602 kms
The above reinforces my confidence in using GE's distance calculation tool.
reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 02:06 AM by Phage
reply to post by tauristercus
Yes, as I said, GE draws great circle routes. I know that. That's the problem. A great circle is a curve. A rhumbline is a straight line. A line of sight observation is a straight line. Using the great circle curves of GE puts the intersections in the wrong locations. It's not a great difference and it doesn't really have much to do with the speed calculation but does move all of your trajectory points to the northeast of where you have them.
You missed my point about using the 10 second video from Tromso to time the travel of the spiral. Even if the trajectory you have arrived at is correct (ignoring the above), you only have identified one location for the spiral from Tromso. That location can easily be incorrect due to the uncertainty of the camera location. Try moving the position you have placed the camera 150 meters south along the shoreline of where you have it and redraw the line through the same point to the right of the cathedral (over the top of the "large building"). You will find that the line intersects your trajectory much closer to "Dissipating". I don't think we are seeing the spiral traveling from "Spiral 2" to "Dissipating" in the Tromso video. I think we are seeing a much shorter range of motion.
From eyewitness reports, the spiral lasted about 2 minutes (the 12-15 minute estimates seem to apply to the duration of the visible exhaust remaining). I don't dispute that your trajectory is close to correct (ignoring the above) but from eyewitness reports, the spiral took about two minutes to travel from "Spiral 2" to "Dissipating". The photographs from Skjervoy support this due to time it would have taken to relocate the camera between photos 2 and 3. It could have been only one minute between the two images but unless the photographer was running pretty fast, it is doubtful that it was only 10 seconds.
spacefellowship.com...
[edit on 2/10/2010 by Phage]
Yes, as I said, GE draws great circle routes. I know that. That's the problem. A great circle is a curve. A rhumbline is a straight line. A line of sight observation is a straight line. Using the great circle curves of GE puts the intersections in the wrong locations. It's not a great difference and it doesn't really have much to do with the speed calculation but does move all of your trajectory points to the northeast of where you have them.
You missed my point about using the 10 second video from Tromso to time the travel of the spiral. Even if the trajectory you have arrived at is correct (ignoring the above), you only have identified one location for the spiral from Tromso. That location can easily be incorrect due to the uncertainty of the camera location. Try moving the position you have placed the camera 150 meters south along the shoreline of where you have it and redraw the line through the same point to the right of the cathedral (over the top of the "large building"). You will find that the line intersects your trajectory much closer to "Dissipating". I don't think we are seeing the spiral traveling from "Spiral 2" to "Dissipating" in the Tromso video. I think we are seeing a much shorter range of motion.
From eyewitness reports, the spiral lasted about 2 minutes (the 12-15 minute estimates seem to apply to the duration of the visible exhaust remaining). I don't dispute that your trajectory is close to correct (ignoring the above) but from eyewitness reports, the spiral took about two minutes to travel from "Spiral 2" to "Dissipating". The photographs from Skjervoy support this due to time it would have taken to relocate the camera between photos 2 and 3. It could have been only one minute between the two images but unless the photographer was running pretty fast, it is doubtful that it was only 10 seconds.
The picture below was taken from a pier, looking to the east, approximately at 07.50 am local time. “I can imagine that it went on for two, three minutes,” said the photographer Jan Petter Jørgensen. “It was unbelievable. I was quite shaken when I saw it.”
spacefellowship.com...
[edit on 2/10/2010 by Phage]
reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 02:33 AM by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by tauristercus
G'day tauristercus
Why did you not factor the cosmic awareness of the galactic federation forces into your calculations?
Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not
[edit on 10-2-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]
G'day tauristercus
Why did you not factor the cosmic awareness of the galactic federation forces into your calculations?
Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not
[edit on 10-2-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]
reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 03:51 AM by Wolfenz
Originally posted by paradiselost333
If it was a missile why have we "never"!! seen an effect like this? you would think that with all the missile launches and failures in this century we would have seen something similari still dont buy it
ive been saying this all along if it were a missile it was controlled
when i first saw the 2 minute video of the norway spiral on you tube !
MY first thought its! a minotaur missile why because it has a plasma like center to the spiral ! (minotaur is mostly used for launching satellites and it has a plasma like tracer ) then hey ! its spinning around longer then it should it did not explode or fall >
then it dissipates to a
dark hole ! and the rest of the spiral disperses then gee the the spiral did have near perfect rings(waves) into it never seen that before in person or a video of a missile failure (still haven't) then i thought ! tromso norway! EISCAT! then i watched Holes in Heaven HAARP www.holesinheaven.com...# here is the the video!! www.youtube.com...
then my mind went in all directions from then on
EISCAT has 1gigawatt of power just like HAARP !
but the gigawatt is only a figure ! explains in the video that it Could possibly produce ! 10, 20 times as much i know what your saying that is impossible!!!!! a little simple demonstration a single battery say an AA battery put it in a pen light ! shine a light it wont blind you put the same battery in a flash capable camera ! and it will blind you!! (within the documentary it says this) the right light bulb and the generation of power!! ESICAT could do the same thing with a ( PULSE ) WAVE! (shiva) me personally im thinking something like a ( Double SLIT Theory ) could EISCAT make a magnetic like beam with a pulse! >? if it could just if, could it control this object (missile shell projectile etc..) in question ? i wouldn't know as i am not a scientist
here is a basic HAARP stats and what the world thinks of what it can do www.mindmeister.com...
have you notice any good weather lately in the last 5 years ? or should i say to good of weather in certain places! Alaska HAARP near Pole EISCAT the SAME Puerto rico near equator ill let ATS Members figure the rest its kinda scary if you think about it ever scarier if all were turn on at the same time to the highest setting at the same location if they all pulsed (thinking deathstar ) LOL
a present from wolfenz ! i think i might have the proof you all been looking for!
read this LINK!!!! and you will be glad you did!!!!!! it happen in 99 and could of happen again ! 10 years later !!www-ssg.sr.unh.edu.../Rockets/Caper/caper.html maybe it failed who knows
dam it say its forbidden doing that way!!!! cut and paste people minus ))) (((www-ssg.sr.unh.edu.../Rockets/Caper/caper.html)))
this here is the smoking gun i think!!!!! PLEASE CLICK on VIDEO! Note Need quicktime in order it to run www.rocketrange.no...
so i guess i might be right after all! in the combination or maybe not
im waiting for the debunking
[edit on 10-2-2010 by Wolfenz]
[edit on 10-2-2010 by Wolfenz]
reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 06:05 AM by davesidious
reply to post by Wolfenz
EISCAT has no ability to create visible phenomenon like we saw. A gigawatt sounds impressive, but when used to heat the ionosphere, it's not.
Minotaur does not include, outside of its payload, anything to do with plasma. It's a rocket.
EISCAT has no ability to create visible phenomenon like we saw. A gigawatt sounds impressive, but when used to heat the ionosphere, it's not.
Minotaur does not include, outside of its payload, anything to do with plasma. It's a rocket.
reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 09:22 AM by davesidious
reply to post by JimOberg
The Bulava is supposed to be the most maneuverable ICBM Russia has ever made. That would require, in the final stage at least (for the MIRV), liquid fuel, as solid rockets (as you know) can't be turned off once ignited.
Of course, as we don't know the precise construction of the Bulava, these are just (somewhat-educated) guesses.
The Bulava is supposed to be the most maneuverable ICBM Russia has ever made. That would require, in the final stage at least (for the MIRV), liquid fuel, as solid rockets (as you know) can't be turned off once ignited.
Of course, as we don't know the precise construction of the Bulava, these are just (somewhat-educated) guesses.
reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 11:05 AM by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
Hey there EM,
Just had a chance to catch up here and that post of yours is just utterly ridiculous man, but it's a great representation of the type of poster you are. It's as if I was arguing with a 5 year old.
But enough is enough already EM. I will not continue to engage in a discussion with you if your sole intent is on resorting to childish and baseless provoking. That's been the sole purpose of your existence in these threads and it's completely unwarranted because you haven't offered anything worthy of serious consideration. Also, it's beginning to detract from the flow of this thread which is not fair to the OP and members here and I would prefer to not get bogged down in any dealings with you.
But before I remove myself from the bog that is you, let me address that analysis of yours one more time: It seems that its become the bible of your belief and your incessant promoting of it does rivala that of a bible thumper. It's been looked at, okay, and it's flawed. Some of those flaws have been pointed out to you, yet you continue shoving that work in peoples faces.
You do understand that the version you keep touting is a revised edition don't you? The authors first go at it had many flaws which needed to be "corrected". Well, it's still not as comprehensive and accurate as it should be if we're to seriously consider it as proof for or against said spiral.
My argument has always been that the analysis relied on assumptions that were a bit suspect which I believed could be setting the stage for misleading values and results.
For instance he only uses one photograph as a basis for his entire hypothesis. That one photograph, as he even states in his paper, "used a long exposure time". That means we're not seeing an exact representation of how the spiral actually appeared that morning. That photograph makes it seem brighter and larger than it was, and since he's deriving his values from that photograph that would lead me to suspect, then, that his values might also appear to be "brighter and larger" as well.
He also states that the 3rd stage is powered by solid fuel propellant. Indications from the Bulava specs state differently, that it's actually liquid fuel propellant. But the entire basis of his analysis is that it's a "smoke" ejection from a solid fuel. And that smoke can't be ejected that fast and should have dissipated at an "easily observable rate". Which we don't even know what that rate is. He certainly could've provided that to substantiate his claim, no? Why should I believe him if his claims are unverified?
And this is just the start of it. So you see, it's not that the math he used was necessarily wrong. He used some simple trigonometry to ultimately achieve his velocities, fine. But it's the basis for his values (i.e the photo and his assumptions) which he plugged into his trig formulas that I have a problem with.
You've taken my own self admittance of not being a mathematician and twisted them to mean that I can't do math or don't understand what it's representing. And you prefer to use that against me as if I'm not in position to question this man's work. Well you couldn't be more wrong if you said the sun was blue.
Did you happen to catch the thread the author started here on ATS? Do the research yourself, but I'll tell you that he didn't spend too much time defending his work here...
And I find this statement of his to be quite telling:
So do you still prefer to thump that "bible" on this one?
Either way I don't care EM...
Now out of respect for the OP who has put together a professional grade post and the members here who are actually engaging in an intelligent dialogue about its content, take your baseless provocations elsewhere. This is the adult table.
[edit on 10-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]
Hey there EM,
Just had a chance to catch up here and that post of yours is just utterly ridiculous man, but it's a great representation of the type of poster you are. It's as if I was arguing with a 5 year old.
But enough is enough already EM. I will not continue to engage in a discussion with you if your sole intent is on resorting to childish and baseless provoking. That's been the sole purpose of your existence in these threads and it's completely unwarranted because you haven't offered anything worthy of serious consideration. Also, it's beginning to detract from the flow of this thread which is not fair to the OP and members here and I would prefer to not get bogged down in any dealings with you.
But before I remove myself from the bog that is you, let me address that analysis of yours one more time: It seems that its become the bible of your belief and your incessant promoting of it does rivala that of a bible thumper. It's been looked at, okay, and it's flawed. Some of those flaws have been pointed out to you, yet you continue shoving that work in peoples faces.
You do understand that the version you keep touting is a revised edition don't you? The authors first go at it had many flaws which needed to be "corrected". Well, it's still not as comprehensive and accurate as it should be if we're to seriously consider it as proof for or against said spiral.
My argument has always been that the analysis relied on assumptions that were a bit suspect which I believed could be setting the stage for misleading values and results.
For instance he only uses one photograph as a basis for his entire hypothesis. That one photograph, as he even states in his paper, "used a long exposure time". That means we're not seeing an exact representation of how the spiral actually appeared that morning. That photograph makes it seem brighter and larger than it was, and since he's deriving his values from that photograph that would lead me to suspect, then, that his values might also appear to be "brighter and larger" as well.
He also states that the 3rd stage is powered by solid fuel propellant. Indications from the Bulava specs state differently, that it's actually liquid fuel propellant. But the entire basis of his analysis is that it's a "smoke" ejection from a solid fuel. And that smoke can't be ejected that fast and should have dissipated at an "easily observable rate". Which we don't even know what that rate is. He certainly could've provided that to substantiate his claim, no? Why should I believe him if his claims are unverified?
And this is just the start of it. So you see, it's not that the math he used was necessarily wrong. He used some simple trigonometry to ultimately achieve his velocities, fine. But it's the basis for his values (i.e the photo and his assumptions) which he plugged into his trig formulas that I have a problem with.
You've taken my own self admittance of not being a mathematician and twisted them to mean that I can't do math or don't understand what it's representing. And you prefer to use that against me as if I'm not in position to question this man's work. Well you couldn't be more wrong if you said the sun was blue.
Did you happen to catch the thread the author started here on ATS? Do the research yourself, but I'll tell you that he didn't spend too much time defending his work here...
And I find this statement of his to be quite telling:
I would have loved to have include data from more pictures, to get a really good sample, but i was limited by the number of pictures with the sunrise in it. that was the only way i could figure out (well, actually, this guy named Kevin Martin figured it out) the relative height (and distance to) of anything in the photo thus creating a relative scale of lengths.
and you're absolutely right, i did not take the curvature of the Earth into account. Looking back on it, there are a million things i would have added, but one of my main goals was to the paper on the web ASAP before "The Spirals" were forgotten.....
So do you still prefer to thump that "bible" on this one?
Either way I don't care EM...
Now out of respect for the OP who has put together a professional grade post and the members here who are actually engaging in an intelligent dialogue about its content, take your baseless provocations elsewhere. This is the adult table.
[edit on 10-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]
reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 11:26 AM by davesidious
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Hear, hear!
I doubt your post will have any effect on the deluge of argumentative effluent that EM has been dropping on this thread. It's so annoying to have a decent discussion, where real analysis is being performed by very intelligent people on this board, derailed because someone else's pet theory doesn't make sense any more and no one is agreeing with them. It is, as you said, childish.
Hopefully we can start to deny ignorance again, but somehow I feel angry fists are already being mashed on a keyboard in an attempt to create a rebuttal of your salient, accurate post. It would be funny were it not such a travesty against knowledge.
Hear, hear!
I doubt your post will have any effect on the deluge of argumentative effluent that EM has been dropping on this thread. It's so annoying to have a decent discussion, where real analysis is being performed by very intelligent people on this board, derailed because someone else's pet theory doesn't make sense any more and no one is agreeing with them. It is, as you said, childish.
Hopefully we can start to deny ignorance again, but somehow I feel angry fists are already being mashed on a keyboard in an attempt to create a rebuttal of your salient, accurate post. It would be funny were it not such a travesty against knowledge.
reply posted on 10-2-2010 @ 12:39 PM by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Yep...You followed the exact method that I predicted that you would. All too easy.
1. You avoided the mathematics because you have no means of translating it.
2. You attacked me with insults as opposed to providing evidence for your argument.
3. And, you chose to attack the link, which you have no means of being able to explain.
You're quite precious, if not downright silly. I have to admit, for one that has no argument, you support it well with absolutely no foundation behind it. So, lets stick with the point of the thread and answer the questions please.
So let me repeat the same thing for you and lets see how you respond again because I am waiting for answers, and something a little more than your standard attack.
By the way...I'm beyond the insult game. That's for kiddies who are still trying to bully the weak in the playground. Since I'm not the weak, I'm not worried.
So, here we go again.
Hey Photon...I'm still waiting for you to translate these supposed fundamental flaws mathematically. www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm
But, as I said before...because you lack any mathematical skills where you can demonstrate and illuminate these "supposed" fundamental flaws, your opinion of whether it is valid or not is NULL AND VOID. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see you post any evidence on your behalf whatsoever...
Here's where you admitted no mathematical skills. By your own admission, you are not qualified to even have an opinion to translate this information. So, you've eliminated yourself as a viable source of an argument. OUCH!!! Thanks for providing that for me. It makes my argument impeccable...against you anyway.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
By the way, in your post, you said you would get back with me on the mathematics. LOL. Its been a few days now...Tick tock, tick tock....
By the way...math is spelled as such and cannot be made plural unless you use the word mathematics. But, I loved the third grade way that you spelled it. "Maths" It let me know the mentality of what I was dealing with.
So, this should be fun.
Let me see if I can adequately define our situation (its been a hilarious one I might add). You have no mathematical abilities, as you've admitted (smart move by the way, this way you're not expected to think). Therefore, it is impossible for you to be able to even know what the math is saying because you lack the fundamental skills to understand them. It would be the equivalent of me looking at a letter sent to me in Chinese Kanji from the Dalai LLama and then telling the Dalai LLama that his punctuation was wrong. Its impossible for me to know, because I do not speak or understand that language. (Oh, if you need proof that Kanji is actually a writing system, I'll be more than happy to provide that evidence.)
You are in no position to say whether there are flaws or not, because your brain doesn't comprehend the message that the math is speaking. Without the language and the ability to prove your theory mathematically, you're opinion is as useless as your arguments.
But, I'll just take your argument at face value with no evidence, mathematics, no opinion, no theory, no evidence, and no hypothesis and assume that you're a self made expert in this brand new "scientific field of sky spirals."
Oh, by the way...here's my prediction for your next post...AGAIN. You'll avoid the inquiry on your ability to translate the math, because this is where you are weakest (get back with me later on that one...right???). You'll attempt to discredit the source and make a general statement like; "There are flaws in the link that EM provided" but, of course, you won't be able to provide a reason as to why, and then try to create a diversionary tactic such as an insult to deflect your blatant ignorance of the content that is being discussed in this thread.
According to you, I've also been provided information that counters the mathematics that are within the link the I've provided. WHERE??? Who did that??? Because all I saw was another member claiming that it was "Hogwash" without any figures to show why it was supposedly..."hogwash." If that's proof, then I want to sell you some beachfront land in Antarctica.
You're a hoot!!! I wish I could sit in a corner all day saying...la la la I can't hear you...la la la. That works in grade school, but not the real world.
Nighty night...and pleasant dreams.
Again, thank you so much for your admission. You've eliminated yourself as a worthy opponent. End of discussion.
[edit on 10-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]
Yep...You followed the exact method that I predicted that you would. All too easy.
1. You avoided the mathematics because you have no means of translating it.
2. You attacked me with insults as opposed to providing evidence for your argument.
3. And, you chose to attack the link, which you have no means of being able to explain.
You're quite precious, if not downright silly. I have to admit, for one that has no argument, you support it well with absolutely no foundation behind it. So, lets stick with the point of the thread and answer the questions please.
So let me repeat the same thing for you and lets see how you respond again because I am waiting for answers, and something a little more than your standard attack.
By the way...I'm beyond the insult game. That's for kiddies who are still trying to bully the weak in the playground. Since I'm not the weak, I'm not worried.
So, here we go again.
Hey Photon...I'm still waiting for you to translate these supposed fundamental flaws mathematically. www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm
But, as I said before...because you lack any mathematical skills where you can demonstrate and illuminate these "supposed" fundamental flaws, your opinion of whether it is valid or not is NULL AND VOID. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see you post any evidence on your behalf whatsoever...
Here's where you admitted no mathematical skills. By your own admission, you are not qualified to even have an opinion to translate this information. So, you've eliminated yourself as a viable source of an argument. OUCH!!! Thanks for providing that for me. It makes my argument impeccable...against you anyway.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
By the way, in your post, you said you would get back with me on the mathematics. LOL. Its been a few days now...Tick tock, tick tock....
By the way...math is spelled as such and cannot be made plural unless you use the word mathematics. But, I loved the third grade way that you spelled it. "Maths" It let me know the mentality of what I was dealing with.
So, this should be fun.
Let me see if I can adequately define our situation (its been a hilarious one I might add). You have no mathematical abilities, as you've admitted (smart move by the way, this way you're not expected to think). Therefore, it is impossible for you to be able to even know what the math is saying because you lack the fundamental skills to understand them. It would be the equivalent of me looking at a letter sent to me in Chinese Kanji from the Dalai LLama and then telling the Dalai LLama that his punctuation was wrong. Its impossible for me to know, because I do not speak or understand that language. (Oh, if you need proof that Kanji is actually a writing system, I'll be more than happy to provide that evidence.)
You are in no position to say whether there are flaws or not, because your brain doesn't comprehend the message that the math is speaking. Without the language and the ability to prove your theory mathematically, you're opinion is as useless as your arguments.
But, I'll just take your argument at face value with no evidence, mathematics, no opinion, no theory, no evidence, and no hypothesis and assume that you're a self made expert in this brand new "scientific field of sky spirals."
Oh, by the way...here's my prediction for your next post...AGAIN. You'll avoid the inquiry on your ability to translate the math, because this is where you are weakest (get back with me later on that one...right???). You'll attempt to discredit the source and make a general statement like; "There are flaws in the link that EM provided" but, of course, you won't be able to provide a reason as to why, and then try to create a diversionary tactic such as an insult to deflect your blatant ignorance of the content that is being discussed in this thread.
According to you, I've also been provided information that counters the mathematics that are within the link the I've provided. WHERE??? Who did that??? Because all I saw was another member claiming that it was "Hogwash" without any figures to show why it was supposedly..."hogwash." If that's proof, then I want to sell you some beachfront land in Antarctica.
You're a hoot!!! I wish I could sit in a corner all day saying...la la la I can't hear you...la la la. That works in grade school, but not the real world.
Nighty night...and pleasant dreams.
Again, thank you so much for your admission. You've eliminated yourself as a worthy opponent. End of discussion.
[edit on 10-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]
The mystery of 100+ mpg cars, and the disappearance & deaths of men behind it
Posted 17 days ago with 106 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 106 member flags
Scientists able to talk to and teach dolphins sentences - Dolphins share a universal language.
Posted 14 days ago with 93 member flags
Posted 14 days ago with 93 member flags
Pirate Bay to Allow Real-Object Downloads. The Real Reason for SOPA, IMO.
Posted 17 days ago with 75 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 75 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Why did you have to complicate it. (Christianity)
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 5 minutes ago
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 5 minutes ago
High levels of radioactive cesium have been detected in noodles produced in Okinawa
Japan, Posted 16 minutes ago
Japan, Posted 16 minutes ago
The Iranian Suicide Boat as a Weapon to Start the Third World War Oil Wars...........
Weaponry, Posted 17 minutes ago
Weaponry, Posted 17 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
I'm 24 and I feel Doomed- A rare Case - 28 reported Worldwide
Medical Issues & Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 21 flags
Medical Issues & Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 21 flags
Anonymous Take Down Greece Government and Police Websites
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 15 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 15 flags
Greece : vote AGAINST the ``enslave all Greeks to the banks`` bill and get kicked out of government
Global Meltdown, Posted 12 hours ago, 10 flags
Global Meltdown, Posted 12 hours ago, 10 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
The Mortal Who Shook Heaven and Hell!
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 16 hours ago, 213 replies
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 16 hours ago, 213 replies
Anonymous Take Down Greece Government and Police Websites
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 59 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 59 replies
NYPD murders unarmed teen in Grandmothers home
Other Current Events, Posted 17 hours ago, 53 replies
Other Current Events, Posted 17 hours ago, 53 replies
Is Nicki Minaj flagging that the ILLUMINATI killed Whitney Houston, at the 2012 Grammy???
General Conspiracies, Posted 13 hours ago, 44 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 13 hours ago, 44 replies
I'm 24 and I feel Doomed- A rare Case - 28 reported Worldwide
Medical Issues & Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 36 replies
Medical Issues & Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 36 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.747 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.747 seconds
