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.

 

Spiraling 'UFO' Was Probably a Russian Missile

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by stupid girl
 


The new Bulava-30s seem really prone to spinning out. What one would be doing as far south as Lebanon I'm not sure, but they'd be the same as the one in Norway in 2009.


All ballistic missile bodies spin to help stabilize themselves in the intermediate "coast phase"above the atmosphere




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
really surprised that nobody is discussing:::

1) platform separation
2) night time launch for spectacle factor
3) failure of last 3 or 4 U.S. ICBM launches

take away first to break a story, the wow factor and the obvious nature of OMG!!! and its a weak conspiracy here.

1 question? why do the Russians want to show the middle east they can launch an ICBM ????


come on guys,,,ask some good questions!!!!
edit on 9-6-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ah, forgive me, I get those mixed up. It was a Bulava that caused the Norway anomaly, though, wasn't it?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by Phage
 


Ah, forgive me, I get those mixed up. It was a Bulava that caused the Norway anomaly, though, wasn't it?

Yes. But it wasn't an anomaly. A spinning third stage is normal behavior.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


3) failure of last 3 or 4 U.S. ICBM launches

What?


1 question? why do the Russians want to show the middle east they can launch an ICBM ????

Well it could have something to do with NATOs ABM program.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Do you happen to know of any footage of similar phenomena, of confirmed missile launches prior to the 2009 Norway incident? I, personally, haven't seen any such footage and would like to have something to compare these spirals to. Also, do you know what, in the missile theory, would explain the rapidly dilating center hole and booming noise (sonic boom?) at the conclusion of the phenomena?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by draco49
reply to post by Phage
 


Do you happen to know of any footage of similar phenomena, of confirmed missile launches prior to the 2009 Norway incident? I, personally, haven't seen any such footage and would like to have something to compare these spirals to. Also, do you know what, in the missile theory, would explain the rapidly dilating center hole and booming noise (sonic boom?) at the conclusion of the phenomena?


Rather than depending on youtube narration, why not start here...

Research on Spinning Velocity of Ballistic Missile Penetrating Some ABL


LIU Ji-fang,XIAN Yong(Faculty 603,The Second Artillery Engineering College,Xi'an 710025,China)
The article introduces the action-scheme,execution of the airborne laser weapon(ABL) and its threat to a ballistic missile.Depending on the spinning penetrating measure at boost phase of the ballistic missile,spinning velocity upper limit and lower limit of the ballistic missile,and the smallest spinning velocity of the ballistic missile,which have possessed the ability of penetrating the ABL are analyzed.According to a certain long-distance ballistic missile,the most appropriate spinning velocity scope of penetrating the ABL is given by simulating tools.The result shows the spinning velocity scope assured can both be achieved on some ballistic missile and obtain the purpose of penetrating some ABL.It is proved that boost phase spinning of the ballistic missile is an available measure of protecting it against a laser bean weapon.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Rather than depending on youtube narration, why not start here...


Thank you for the link. Just to be clear, I wasn't "depending" on anything. I'm curious about whatever it is that causes these spirals and haven't yet seen any video that supports the missile claim. I have also not read any technical information regarding the rapid dilation of the spiral and ensuing booming sounds that, to me, sound like sonic booms. I'm not claiming that these things are UFOs, alien portals, or otherwise. I simply find them interesting and want to know more about them. So please, don't take on a condescending tone with me. It's not necessary.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by draco49
 

Here's a good illustration. Which I have repeatedly posted. It should be self explanatory.


Please provide examples of a booming sound heard in conjunction with the spirals.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by draco49
 

Here's a good illustration. Which I have repeatedly posted. It should be self explanatory.


Please provide examples of a booming sound heard in conjunction with the spirals.


Thanks for posting this vid and information. I had not previously seen this, so I apologize for the redundancy. The booming sound I'm referring to is exemplified in the primary Canada video:


In the video of the same incident, filmed from the window of a passing airplane, the boom is not heard, but I suspect that is because of the distance and the fact that the video was shot inside of a jet.


The video you provided is a good example of a confirmed missile launch, and is certainly similar to some of the reported spirals, but I also see some major differences between it and both the Norway spiral and this Canadian spiral/incident. The Norway spiral incident took place over more than 1 hour before reaching its conclusion of rapid central dilation of the spiral. Additionally, rings of that spiral were perfectly symmetrical. In contrast, the spiral produced by the missile launch was short in duration and displayed an irregular motion that one would expect to see in such a situation. It also doesn't exhibit the inner blue glow seen in the Norway incident.

The Canadian incident is obviously not a missile launch, so there's no need to compare that to the missile video. In that incident, one can either believe it's a hoax, or was a genuine physical occurrence. When I first saw the Canadian video (the one from my first vid link in this post), my first instinct was that it was a hoax. I am typically suspect anytime video of that quality and seemingly-perfect camera perspective are presented. It wasn't until I saw the second video, taken from a passing commercial jet, that I began to consider that it wasn't a product of computer imaging. In order for it to have been a hoax produced by CG work, one would have to believe that the perpetrator had access to both pieces of original footage, and the capability to accurately and mathematically re-create and re-render the incident in relation to perspective. Re-examining the first video, the background audio and ensuing boom sounds that are heard sound authentic, and are consistent with the visual imagery in timing.

For me, there is still a mystery. The missile video is a great reference for comparison, and is very similar to other previously unidentified spirals. However, there are enough differences between that and both the Norway and Canadian incidents, that casts doubt that a traditional missile launch was responsible. This doesn't mean I'm jumping on the UFO portal/time gate bandwagon. I think there are probably several other prosaic possibilities to consider before jumping to such a conclusion.

Generally speaking, it seems to me that there are only two camps on this issue. Either you think it's UFO and/or wormhole related, or you think it's just a missile launch. The first side represents the tin-foil hat crowd, and the second represents the "modern science can explain everything" crowd. In my opinion, both sides are operating under a false premise. The tin-foil hat people immediately assume that everything that appears unusual is a UFO, and the modern-science people immediately assume that everything unusual fits neatly into their model of the universe.

I, myself, am well educated and work in the field of science and engineering (though, obviously, not in the field of aeronautics or meteorology). I maintain a healthy level of skepticism, relying on logic and demonstrable facts to form my speculations. However, I think it's important to differentiate between "skeptic" and "debunker", because there is a real difference. A skeptic will rigorously examine and evaluate the evidence with no allegiance to the results, regardless of whether or not they fit into accepted models. This is what science is all about; expanding our understanding of the world by challenging existing models. The debunker, on the other hand, has an agenda. They begin with a premise and accepted model, and diligently attempt to explain things in terms of that accepted model. They criticize any speculations that don't fit into their models, and deny any possibility that their model could be wrong. This is contrary to science. I think everyone needs to apply healthy skepticism to these types of things, but also keep an open mind to factual and evidentiary conclusions that do not fit into accepted models.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by draco49
 

As pointed out the Canada videos are part of a hoax. A very poor hoax.
Look at the airplane video. Note the star in the upper left corner of the frame.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You really should review the thread about it. There are many problems with the videos.

edit on 6/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by draco49
 

As pointed out the Canada videos are part of a hoax.


Well, you can believe that if you want. It's certainly possible. But as far as i know, there is no evidence that it was a hoax, or of how the alleged hoax was perpetrated. I know some guy claimed to have created the hoax, but was unable to reproduce what he supposedly had done, an later recanted his story of being responsible for creating a hoax. If you have some sort of evidence that supports the theory that it was a hoax, I would like to see it. Also, if you have evidence that the event actually occurred, but was caused by something that has been unequivocally demonstrated, I would like to see that.

Claiming it was a hoax without providing evidence is just as silly as claiming it was a UFO without providing evidence. So, if it was a hoax, what type of hoax was it (i.e. CG imaging, something physically put into the sky to created such an incident)? How was the hoax created, and what evidence supports that finding? Finally, who was responsible. If your claim that the Canada videos are a hoax isn't supported by any evidence, I don't see how your position is any different than someone who emphatically insists that it is a UFO portal.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by draco49
 


Claiming it was a hoax without providing evidence is just as silly as claiming it was a UFO without providing evidence.

As I said, review the tread. There is evidence.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by draco49
 

As pointed out the Canada videos are part of a hoax. A very poor hoax.
Look at the airplane video. Note the star in the upper left corner of the frame.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You really should review the thread about it. There are many problems with the videos.

edit on 6/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I have read the thread and explanations by both sides of the aisle. I'm not convinced by either side that their premise is the correct one. I am perfectly happy and willing to accept that it was a hoaxed incident, but I need more than the gut reactions and interpretive speculations by the "debunkers". A general consensus amongst people who have no interest in accepting anything other than the hoax theory is far from compelling, and even further from evidentiary proof.
edit on 6/10/2012 by draco49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by draco49
 

The objective evidence is there.
Never mind.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by draco49
 

The objective evidence is there.
Never mind.


When a verifiable, expert source provides analysis of the incident and scientific proof of a hoax, I'll consider that. That thread you referenced is full of people who provide various speculations on why they believe it be a hoax, with little more than rhetoric and patronizing insistence. Unless I missed it, there is nothing that can be considered "evidence" in that thread. You a free to believe it was a hoax, and you are free to believe that the Norway spiral was created by a missile launch. But without verifiable, factual evidence, an opinion is all it will be. I have not formed an opinion and have not drawn any conclusions for that very reason. Anyone can say anything, but without evidence it's meaningless.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by rebellender
 


3) failure of last 3 or 4 U.S. ICBM launches

What?


1 question? why do the Russians want to show the middle east they can launch an ICBM ????

Well it could have something to do with NATOs ABM program.


what do you mean
WHAT?

and whats with the derailing over previous thread crap?


edit on 10-6-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
really surprised that nobody is discussing:::

1) platform separation
2) night time launch for spectacle factor
3) failure of last 3 or 4 U.S. ICBM launches

take away first to break a story, the wow factor and the obvious nature of OMG!!! and its a weak conspiracy here.

1 question? why do the Russians want to show the middle east they can launch an ICBM ????


come on guys,,,ask some good questions!!!!
edit on 9-6-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)


My guess is they are showing Israel "hey we got nukes, and sometimes they work! Leave Iran alone or next time we launch one it will be swilling with piss and vinegar."



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


what do you mean
WHAT?

Sorry, I mean: what do you mean the last 3 or 4 US ICBM's failed? I see one failure out of the last 4 launches. Are there some that I am not aware of?

February 25, 2012: www.kcoy.com...
July 27, 2012: www.ksby.com...
June 22,2011: www.airforcetimes.com...
June 30, 2010: www.vandenberg.af.mil...



and whats with the derailing over previous thread crap?

What? Oh, excuse me. Let me rephrase that. I don't know what you mean. How is pointing out that this is a duplicate thread "derailing"?
edit on 6/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join