It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian Spiral event : Preliminary analysis (Part 2)

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
This thread is a continuation of my previous thread titled:
Australian Spiral event : Preliminary analysis

The primary reason for this new threads existence is largely due to ATS member Project_Exo who has raised 2 very interesting observations which I had not addressed in my previous thread.

The 2 observations are:
  • An apparent discrepancy between the observed direction of roll of the Falcon when compared to the observed direction of rotation of the spiral itself
  • A number of very brief light flashes occurring very near the spiral as observed in one of the videos



Ok, lets begin by addressing the 1st observation of roll/rotation discrepancy.



The flight of the Falcon 9 from launch to orbital insertion apparently was almost trouble free and performed beyond expectations.


The Falcon 9 maiden launch occurred on June 4, 2010 and was deemed a success ...

source: en.wikipedia.org...

However, there did develop an unexpected degree of roll in the 2nd stage of the Falcon 9 during engine burn and continued after main engine shut down.


The second stage began to slowly roll near the end of its burn which was not expected ...

source: en.wikipedia.org...


This roll is very evident in the following sequence of images during 2nd stage burn.




By the time the 1st stage separates and the 2nd stage ignites, the Falcon 9 has already begun insertion into its eastwards facing trajectory and therefore, the view from the backwards facing on-board camera must be towards the west.

Now from the cameras point of view, its frame of reference is the Falcon 9 itself and it could be quite legitimately claimed that within this frame of reference, that the Falcon 9 is NOT rolling around it's thrust axis and that it is in fact the Earth that is rotating around the rocket.
As is plainly obvious, from the Falcons point of view, the Earth has suddenly acquired an ANTI-CLOCKWISE roll.


So far so good ... no rocket science (pun intended) needed to understand that observation.


Now, lets change the frame of reference to that of a ground based observer at the launch point watching the Falcon 9 climb into the sky and inserting into an easterly facing trajectory.
From that observers frame of reference and viewing the rapidly disappearing rocket, it's plainly obvious that the Earth itself has NOT developed a roll and that it is in fact the Falcon 9 that is rolling. And from the observers viewpoint, the Falcon 9 suddenly develops a significant ANTI-CLOCKWISE roll as it continues in its eastwards trajectory.




Now as far as we know, mission control observed the roll but decided against correcting it and so the Falcon 9 performed final orbital insertion with a significant degree of anti-clockwise roll.

At this point, it's very important to understand that from a ground based observer watching the Falcon 9 travel AWAY from them in an easterly direction ... that EVERY one of those observers, whether in the US or Australia, will agree on the fact that they observe an ANTI-CLOCKWISE roll of the Falcon 9 as it heads AWAY from them towards the eastern horizon.


Having established an anti-clockwise roll for the Falcon 9 as it heads away from a ground based observer, lets take a look at some imagery of the event showing very clearly and indisputably that the spiral displays a distinct and unambiguous clockwise rotation throughout the entire event observation period.



So here we are back to Project_Exo's question as to why the Falcon 9's roll and the spirals direction of rotation are opposite to each other.
For the spiral to have a clockwise rotation, and assuming that the 'venting fuel' hypothesis is correct, then the Falcon 9's roll MUST match the spirals direction of rotation ... and yet such has just been shown to be clearly not the case.

The logical implication is therefore that the spiral structure was NOT the result of a quantity of excess fuel being vented into space as we have been led to believe ... and therefore we have to attribute the spirals formation to some other mechanism.




Lets move on to observation 2 whereby a number of repetitious flashes of light are observed to occur within close proximity to the spiral.


The following image shows the flashes and their (relative from the observers point of view) proximity to the spiral structure.




These light flashes have a very accurate repetition rate of 36 frames. With 24 frames in 1 second of video, this translates to an accurate flash rate of exactly once every 1.5 seconds.

Here's the time line from the video showing the actual observed flashes (red lines) and with the expected, but not observed flashes (blue arrows) inserted appropriately. The regular flash rates becomes very apparent indeed.



So what are we to make of the object in relative close proximity to the spiral ?
Two options immediately spring to mind.

The 1st option is that we're coincidentally seeing the flashing strobe navigation lights of a passing aircraft.
The problem with this is that firstly, we have to accept that out of the entire sky area visible in the video, that this one particular aircraft happens to appear in almost the exact same section of the sky that the spiral was in. Sure, coincidences do happen ... but this time and in that particular location ?
Another problem is that aircraft strobe navigation lights are designed and mounted to be visible continuously. In this instance we have 3 time periods in which the flash was not visible (blue arrows in above time line image).

The 2nd (and more probable) option is that we're seeing a high altitude object that is reflecting sunlight at very regular intervals from some structure (one or multiple) that rotates into the right position, reflects the sunlight, then rotates away ... this rotation into sunlight, reflection, rotation away from sunlight occurs exactly every 1.5 seconds.
This rotational behaviour would also possibly explain the missing 2 flashes as the structural item responsible for reflecting the sunlight would need to be rotated into and positioned at the optimal angle for reflection to occur and be captured by the video camera.


Conclusion:

Due to the hard to reconcile differences in the Falcon 9's observed roll when compared to the spiral rotation direction, we have to consider the possibility that the spiral effect even though definitively associated with the Falcon 9, may not in fact have been an unintentional side effect of vented fuel. The possibility is open that the observed highly repetitive light flash is actually sunlight reflecting of surface features on the Falcon 9 itself, and that the spiral effect was the resultant physical manifestation of some other entirely unknown process, whether intentional or accidental, and associated with the Falcon 9.

The above opens up the possibility that the Falcon 9 created the spiral, then physically separated itself from the spiral structure. But to do so, the Falcon 9 would have had to have fired up it's engines once more and accelerated away from the spiral structure - which would be at odds with excess fuel having been vented.


So many questions ... so few answers :puz
 
Mod edit: colour tag corrected.

[edit on 15/6/2010 by ArMaP]




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Just like the OP said -


So many questions ... so few answers



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Nice job this is gonna be real interesting to follow and see where this goes.You have done some very good a thorough research here all I can say is let the armchair scientists figure out how to debunk this one.Great job.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by tsurfer2000h]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Hello, Tauristercus!
Good job and effort in doing this kind of analysys!

I have no time to go into details (which was my habit sometime ago)
Jim Oberg raised a compelling explanation regarding the spiral rotation issue, on the other thread.
He told us about "giroscopic" effect, that is, if the rochet was spinning, it will maintain it's relatively fixed orientation related to the sky (as an reference system)...In the mean time, from the launch site until Australia, the rocket made about half an orbit (180 degree), while maintaining it's axis ...meaning, when above Australia, it's head was pointing NOT into the direction of movement, but exactly back, to the west...so, "flying" in reverse orientation.
This is giroscopic effect.
While i'm having problems with my english, and no time to better illustrate the idea, i'm sure you may understand the principle described.

As for the flashing light, i'll go with the plane explanation...if it was something also in orbit, maybe other videos or witness stories should describe it.
The superposition plane/rocket may happened to one a bit lucky observer, explaining why others didn't see it.




[edit on 14/6/10 by depthoffield]

[edit on 14/6/10 by depthoffield]

[edit on 14/6/10 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield
Jim Oberg raised a compelling explanation regarding the spiral rotation issue, on the other thread.


Here's the link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would be grateful if you can help me work out a clear way to explain this concept, so it can be properly evaluated. It seems to refute your first thesis on this new thread.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Great work tauristercus, It is sad that you had to go into such great detail on something so simple.


So many questions ... so few answers


As for the flashes, I have seen a similar phenomenon first hand.


can't say for sure what it was, but sure was exciting to see.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by depthoffield
Jim Oberg raised a compelling explanation regarding the spiral rotation issue, on the other thread.


Here's the link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would be grateful if you can help me work out a clear way to explain this concept, so it can be properly evaluated. It seems to refute your first thesis on this new thread.



It seems to me that a satellite rotating on two axes would be a failure of sorts. Rotation on one axis has been documented, this front over back one is speculation at this point.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Exo
Great work tauristercus, It is sad that you had to go into such great detail on something so simple.


So many questions ... so few answers


As for the flashes, I have seen a similar phenomenon first hand.


can't say for sure what it was, but sure was exciting to see.


Project_Exo ... just took a look at your attached vid clip and have to admit that the people concerned seemed genuinely amazed and intrigued by what they were seeing ... but truthfully, I have to say that I was completely confused by what was being shown and had no idea what I was supposed to be seeing.
Were they using lasers to illuminate the bright flashes ?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Exo
It seems to me that a satellite rotating on two axes would be a failure of sorts. Rotation on one axis has been documented, this front over back one is speculation at this point.


I repeat my advice -- what 'seems' to you, based on your fundamental misconceptions about space flight, is useless as evidence or argument until you make an effort to unlearn your misconceptions and acquire some valid concepts.

Nobody has suggested end over end rotation, although that does occur. Where did you get the idea that I or anyone suggested that the Falcon-2 second stage was rotating end over end?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


ya, the video sucks, If you view it on full screen in the dark you can see the flashes though. The Lasers are used to point objects out in the sky, so the group can all be looking at the same thing.

That was a crazy experience, we had helicopters flying right over us, and UAV's in holding patterns over our heads.

Back to the falcon 9, I emailed spacex with some questions, and am hoping they can provide more information on the rocket after shut down.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Project_Exo]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Exo
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Back to the falcon 9, I emailed spacex with some questions, and am hoping they can provide more information on the rocket after shut down.


Excellent ... lets hope that they supply some useful additional info as until then, we're basically operating on guess work and conjecture regarding the Falcon's eventual orbital attitude.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Project_Exo
It seems to me that a satellite rotating on two axes would be a failure of sorts. Rotation on one axis has been documented, this front over back one is speculation at this point.


I repeat my advice -- what 'seems' to you, based on your fundamental misconceptions about space flight, is useless as evidence or argument until you make an effort to unlearn your misconceptions and acquire some valid concepts.

Nobody has suggested end over end rotation, although that does occur. Where did you get the idea that I or anyone suggested that the Falcon-2 second stage was rotating end over end?



Geez I honestly thought that was what you were saying in that statement. so now I am back to square one, and have no figging idea what you are saying. Study how someone like Michio Kaku explains complex scientific concepts, and try again.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
It seems to refute your first thesis on this new thread.


can't understand this. You addressed to me?






Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by depthoffield
Jim Oberg raised a compelling explanation regarding the spiral rotation issue, on the other thread.


Here's the link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would be grateful if you can help me work out a clear way to explain this concept, so it can be properly evaluated.



As i said, no time to spend lately..but, sometimes i make an exception.


If the rochet is spinning along it's longitudinal axis, then, it became a gyroscope, which will maintain it's direction of the axis of rotation.

In this respect, our situation is described in the following drawing:





some requirements:

- during ascent and thrust phase, the rotation begins (anti-clockwise as seen from the launch site - determined by the movie from onboard camera), almost when inserted in orbit (point A in the drawing)

- between A and B point, the thrust stopped, and therefore, the rochet is moving inertially, as a gyrsocope along its axis, but also "flying" in orbit

- points B, C, D, E , still in orbit, but also rotating along it's longitudiunal axis, therefore maintaining the direction of the axis

- before point E, the venting is ocurring, but also it goes into sunshine, the plume is becoming visible

- as seen by the australian observer, now the rotation of the rocket is CLOCKWISE while the rochet DIDN'T CHANGE IT'S rotation a bit.




Similar things happens with our EARTH during a year when orbiting the sun.
So, that's why goes the seasons. But we all know that Earth axis doesn't change, pointing to Polaris star, as a big...gyroscope! (well, not quite, there is precession movement ...a very slowly changing in ages en.wikipedia.org... )

source: en.wikipedia.org...

Here is the drawing with Earth seasons:






Of course, i don't say that our rocket just did exactly that, but, this is an explanation which resolve the rotation issue.

credit to Jim Oberg to found this simple explanation.






[edit on 15/6/10 by depthoffield]

[edit on 15/6/10 by depthoffield]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Exo
Geez I honestly thought that was what you were saying in that statement. so now I am back to square one, and have no figging idea what you are saying. Study how someone like Michio Kaku explains complex scientific concepts, and try again.


It's a deal. Pay me what they pay Kaku for the explanations, and we can start this afternoon.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
Excellent ... lets hope that they supply some useful additional info as until then, we're basically operating on guess work and conjecture regarding the Falcon's eventual orbital attitude.


There's guesswork and conjecture based on known principles of space flight, and then there's fantasy and misconceptions based on imaginary non-principles. They do differ in usefulness and reliability.

A good place to start with how things work in orbit is with amateur satellite observation. See satobs.org... for typical reports. Visit www.heavens-above.com for advice on getting started. It's fun, educational, and a good prescription for undoing misconceptions.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


I may be mixing things up, but doesn't an anticlockwise rotation seen from behind turn into a clockwise rotation when seen from the front?

PS: great post!



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


That is a very good point.

Although I'm not one to believe everything is a UFO and that nothing as it seems, for some reason my gut feeling is telling me this spiral actually is something out of the ordinary and I feel that the explanations offered by the media are cover-ups. Don't ask me why it's just a hunch lol.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by tauristercus
Excellent ... lets hope that they supply some useful additional info as until then, we're basically operating on guess work and conjecture regarding the Falcon's eventual orbital attitude.


There's guesswork and conjecture based on known principles of space flight, and then there's fantasy and misconceptions based on imaginary non-principles. They do differ in usefulness and reliability.

A good place to start with how things work in orbit is with amateur satellite observation. See satobs.org... for typical reports. Visit www.heavens-above.com for advice on getting started. It's fun, educational, and a good prescription for undoing misconceptions.


stop making vague criticisms, it is not really helpful.

Is there a shred of evidence of this ever happening before(not that I think that it is impossible, I just want to know if it is at all common)? I have found dozens of videos showing satellites staying parallel with their orbit trajectory.

you are the one that claims to know what it is, so the burden of proof is on you.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Exo
I have found dozens of videos showing satellites staying parallel with their orbit trajectory.


By all means, please share some of those -- let's see if you even understand what is being shown.

We're looking for examples of a slowly spinning-along-long-axis rocket stage over a period of half an orbit, with no disturbing forces or control thrusting.

Show us what you think is an example of that.

And no, views of the USS Enterprise from Hollywood don't count.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
No I don't believe there is any connection to a UFO here, i've stated earlier somewhere VERY clearly that Falcon 9 is significant itself and will open the door to more ufo sightings and eventual disclosure.

but I completely disagree with this thread, because I find this sighting in and of itself is in HIGH PROBABILITY conventional phenomena and isn't significant / extraordinary enough to be worthy of consideration.

ie: Green light zigzagging across the sky, or the spiral creating a wormhole and you see objects coming out of it.

Sorry to be a downer, and I have a feeling quite a few won't respect the way I think but i'd rather err on the side of being realistic and down to earth.





[edit on 15-6-2010 by redrezo]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join