Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !

reply to post by ALLis0NE


There is only one piece of evidence that can prove a photographs shutter speed...show me your exif information or you have no evidence to back your claim other than heresay.

If not i am not going to debate any further and I am not debunked.

Respects

The Coriolis effect may explain why the event could be seen in Norway, but it doesnt explain how someone at sea level 800km away can see the launch plume, as explained it would be like watching a shuttle launch from florida while being north carolina. And that plume would be gigantic as explained. Can you see cloud systems 800km away visually? 800km is 497miles, you can't see a weather sytem that far out, so why a launch plume?

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
If you remember earlier you said Stage 2 reaches a height of 500 kms.... now you state that the plume would have to be only 40 kms to be visible in those pictures. So I don't really see any problem with that?

The white plume trail below the blue cloud is all 1st and 2nd stages. So you can assume that the top of the plume is near 500 kms. That makes it perfectly high enough to be visible from Norway.

I'm not the OP but I will reply to you anyway.

You do realise the exhaust plume is only stage one of the rocket, right? The exhaust plume would not extend to 500 KMs. The blue in the photo is stage two. The spiral is stage 3.

Yup... I said EISCAT on page 2 or 3 of the original thread... I even gave links to their site where 'they' confirm activity on the morning in question.

reply to post by captiva


Well if you want to play that game, then I can just state that the entire image should be considered fake, and photoshopped, until you can provide the original RAW image with the EXIF in tact that shows it hasn't been run through image editing software.

Until then you have no proof the image is even genuine, and unedited.

You don't have to be an expert to visually see the image has a slow shutter speed... but I guess you do.. since you are unable to see it.

Great thread,

I think its important to note that it is clear as the light of day that each countries government are working together on these matters in some form of researched staged manner. The question I have to ask is what one thing is binding them together?

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
If you remember earlier you said Stage 2 reaches a height of 500 kms.... now you state that the plume would have to be only 40 kms to be visible in those pictures. So I don't really see any problem with that?

The white plume trail below the blue cloud is all 1st and 2nd stages. So you can assume that the top of the plume is near 500 kms. That makes it perfectly high enough to be visible from Norway.

I'm not the OP but I will reply to you anyway.

You do realise the exhaust plume is only stage one of the rocket, right? The exhaust plume would not extend to 500 KMs. The blue in the photo is stage two. The spiral is stage 3.

I want an answer to this...

Nice post.

I seen two types sof media repoting on this. The first was very dismissive and the usual jokey report make you out to be silly if you think it is anything other than a failed missile.

The other reports spoke about the spiral. They then spoke about the failed russian missile. The media was then 'allowed' to link the two because the media is so intelligent.

So then the reports went => 'people have been left stunned by the sprial appearance in the sky over Norway. Early reports have suggested this may have been a failed russian Missile. Then Russia CONFIRMED they had a failed missile launch.

So then the monkeys in the media added 2+2 and got 5. => Russia confirmed its failed missile lauch which was most lightly responsible for the spiral display in Norway. I did not see any reports stating Russia confirmed its failed missile launch was responsible for the spiral display in Norway.

From what I can see this was decided by the media (whether or not it is true, I have no idea)



Peace.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by itstheendoftheworldaswekn]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Are you serious? The earths rotation accounts for why people can see the effects of a rocket launched 800 KM away in a different direction to the observers?

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
The reason the image on the left has ONE is because it was such a long exposure (slow shutter) that it blended the other spiral into it making it appear as one.

Shouldn't the shutter speed able to be (roughly) calculated? I don't have the inclination but perhaps you could use rotation speed of the rocket (from a video) and the arc(s) from the exhaust of the rocket in the long exposure photo.

If, as you say, the spirals are exactly overlapping each other in that photo, then the exposure should be the time it takes the rocket to rotate 180 degrees.

However, I'm not totally convinced what we are seeing in the photo is how you explained it. I mean, obviously the shutter speed is slow, but if it was as slow as you are making it out to be then shouldn't the picture just be a single gray disc?

[edit on 14/12/09 by GobbledokTChipeater]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Last comment to you, you do not require a file to be in raw format to view the exif. Exif information will be embeded in a tiff file. I take it you dont have the exif information I asked for? so your comments are heresay.

If anyone wants to view my pro site as reference my qualifications please u2u me.

Respects

reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater


I wont comment on that until I can confirm it, and know the validness of that statement.

You have a source?

reply to post by captiva


Duh, I'm saying I wan the RAW file so I know that it is untouched and hasn't been in a video editing software, or further compressed.

ERRRGGHHH why am I even debating with you people... it's already proven to be a missile.. this is like debating with "flat Earth theorists"..... never ending cycle of denial.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater

 

I wont comment on that until I can confirm it, and know the validness of that statement.

You have a source?

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
The white plume trail below the blue cloud is all 1st and 2nd stages. So you can assume that the top of the plume is near 500 kms. That makes it perfectly high enough to be visible from Norway.

Howsabout you give me a source for your claim first? You know, since you made your claim before me.

Anyway, why do you need a source for my claim? You made a claim to the contrary of my claim, so you shouldn't need a source to know that I am wrong (of course, this depends on your claim being true). Unless you don't really know what you are talking about....

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
ERRRGGHHH why am I even debating with you people... it's already proven to be a missile.. this is like debating with "flat Earth theorists"..... never ending cycle of denial.

Yet you don't respond to some of the more "intelligent" questions. Like how can the effects of a rocket, which was fired 800 Km's away, in a different direction to the observer be seen?

Can people in Salt lake city see launches from Edwards AFB in CA, because that's the distance we are dealing with here? I know you can see it from death valley around 200 miles away but the first and second stage contrail would be almost impossible to see at 500 miles.

We are not saying that it isn't a missile, however Russia simply did not launch it 500 miles away, it it was infact a russian missile.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by LordBaskettIV]

You guys realise that true and false is the same thing

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

They were both taken with the same camera, and they used a slower shutter speed. They are brighter than normal, and show more light than is actually there because they were exposed to more light.

I am not knowledgeable about photography but have a question... If you don't have the EXIF data available, then how do you know that they were both taken with the same camera? Because the photographs are so similar? Really... just a question...

To link this to HAARP like technology is a stretch beyond stretches... HAARP is really a mundane tech.

How do you know this? Do you purport to know of all of the HAARP projects underway or are you going from public knowledge? Again... just a question, not an accusation.

Okaay, I admit I forgot the Earth's rotation too
I'm just trying to understand, not to debunk anything, so bear with me. Help is also appreciated

Ok, so what do we have now - according to OP's graph, a person, standing at sea level would see an object that is 800 km away only when that object is 43 km high (that would be the lowest end of the plume) as I understand.
The speed of earth's rotation around it's axis at the equator is 40000 km/24 hrs or 462 m/s. This speed at such a high latitude (70 degrees) is about 150 m/s.

Taking Space Shuttle as a comparison, it climbs to 45 km in about 2 minutes. As intercontinental missile doesn't have to cap acceleration at 3 G's (for astronauts to survive), probably it makes those 40 km even faster. So, Earth travels about 15 km during those 100 secs.
The distance to the bottom of the plume standing at the sea level and looking straight at the horizon might be somewhere around 750-785 km (depends if the rocket goes straight up or at the inclination).

I we make an assumption (again) that all the white plume was first stage (as someone said earlier), so it deffinitely extends more than those 40 km (which we do not see because of earth's curvature)

One more point I'd like to make is the angle we see the top of the white plume at - it's about 10 degrees, according to the altidute of that mountain (620 m) and distance from the photographer to that mountain (3,6 km).
Main problem here is to find for how long did the first stage rocket burn, only then could we determine how much the Earth has turned and how high the white plume has ended/how far it was. I'm stumped about the spiral though, so no comments about that.
Also, exact times for the missile launch and the photographs would be nice

I did some graphs and calculations, but can't upload then at the mo' and don't think it's worth it. So no visuals from me

I'm now leaning towards a rocket actually, it's just cool to try to wrap my mind around this, even though I might be completely off.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by ilaruum]

HOAGLAND had the same theory only i read it 4 days ago on his site complete with all the pics.............

Originally posted by eyeinoz

HOAGLAND had the same theory only i read it 4 days ago on his site complete with all the pics.............

Link please?