Norway Spiral Mathematically Proven to not be a Missile

That's a nice piece of work but there could be a problem with your initial assumptions (and a few other things). Based on a single photograph, you have assumed that the size of the spiral in the distance is proportionate with the size of the objects nearer to the camera. Depending on the lens used, this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps you could expand your thesis to include an analysis of these images:





Furthermore, in determining the height of the missile you have used as your base line a flat Earth. The Earth is round. Even if it was 971 km away it would have been substantially higher than 32,000 above the surface. It is very likely that the spiral was at a height of substantially greater than 100km. Things that high can be seen from very long distances.



[edit on 12/18/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Phage, the bigger he assumes it is, the more damning it is for the rocket theory.


Ie, the higher it is in the air, the bigger it has to actually be to appear the same size from the surface, and the more distance the "smoke" has to cover in the same amount of time, thus an even greater velocity required of it.

Originally posted by Phage
Even if it was 971 km away it would have been substantially higher than 32,000 above the surface. It is very likely that the spiral was at a height of substantially greater than 100km. Things that high can be seen from very long distances.

Yeah, then you are just hurting your own case.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by bsbray11]

I can't believe some people on here ! Have you noticed the OP's name ! He's specifically joined this site to help try and explain what happened or did'nt happen over Norway ! It's obviously taken him time and effort (and yes i DID download the PDF and it's clean) and all you can do is blow him off with your ignorant and unyielding attitudes ! You should hold your heads in shame ! I on the other-hand would like to thank him for his work and hope he does'nt blow ATS and it's small minded biased ignorant members off in the future ! We need more of his ilk around !

[edit on 103131p://12America/Chicago18 by ProRipp]

reply to post by ProRipp


In our different ways, both trigNspirals and myself have gone to great lengths to bring a mathematical analysis to the Norway spiral event. Our attempt to use mathematics to show that we're not simply content to blow hot air in everyone's face and have you accept our opininions simply because WE say that we don't believe the "failed missile" scenario.

Now, trigNspirals may or may not be entirely accurate with his calculations ... and the same applies to myself ... but the point is that both of us have tried to make sense of the available data, perform an analysis and integrate it into a mathematical form that may give us some workable limits to apply. And based on these limits, we may be allowed to say with a certain degree of reasonableness as to whether there was a possibility that a missile COULD HAVE created the spiral, or alternatively, that the resultant mathematics indicates strongly that a missile simply COULD NOT HAVE caused the effect.

From my work and that of trigNspirals, I believe that the missile scenario is not consistent with the observed evidence and that we need to look for an alternate source.


Again from my point of view, and comparing the input from the "not a missile" and the opposing "it's a missile" camp, it's very much obvious that there has been a heck of a lot of SERIOUS analysis with detailed explanations from the "not a missile" camp, and almost zero similar analysis and explanations from the "it's a missile camp".
It would be a wonderful (and instructive) thing if someone from the "it's a missile" camp would take the time to create, using existing data, a detailed analysis of the missile behaviour to account for the spiral creation ... instead of repeating ad nauseum "it's a missile ... it's a missile ...".

Anyway, trigNspirals ... well done and great effort !

reply to post by tauristercus


Believe me mate i have championed your theory in another post on ATS aswell and been jumped on from a great height ! I have studied both yours and trignspirals theories ! I do not believe this was the result of a missile ! However sh1t the bulava missiles so obviously are !



[edit on 113131p://12America/Chicago18 by ProRipp]

Originally posted by ProRipp
I can't believe some people on here ! Have you noticed the OP's name ! He's specifically joined this site to help try and explain what happened or did'nt happen over Norway ! It's obviously taken him time and effort (and yes i DID download the PDF and it's clean) and all you can do is blow him off with your ignorant and unyielding attitudes ! You should hold your heads in shame ! I on the other-hand would like to thank him for his work and hope he does'nt blow ATS and it's small minded biased ignorant members off in the future ! We need more of his ilk around !

[edit on 103131p://12America/Chicago18 by ProRipp]

Yes I agree with you, this site should be called Above Totalatarian Skeptics.

Ever heard of something called intuition or gut feeling. I told you guys it wasn't a missile before and I don't care what calculations or this or that you use, it wasn't a missile and will continue to not be a missile, okay keep a postin and dancin Maria.

But kudos to the person who decided to do something mathematically to prove it was not a darn rocket.

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Believe me mate i have championed your theory in another post on ATS aswell and been jumped on from a great height ! I have studied both yours and trignspirals theories ! I do not believe this was the result of a missile ! However sh1t the bulava missiles so obviously are !

[edit on 113131p://12America/Chicago18 by ProRipp]

And believe me that support has NOT gone unnoticed .. so thank you

But as I mentioned in my previous post, so many people claim it to be a failed missile test but NO detailed analysis is forthcoming from any of them ... which is disappointing.
I'd be quite prepared to seriously consider the missile possibility should one of them pony up with even a reasonable attempt at an analysis ... but so far nothing to counter or that even comes close to the analysis done by those of us who don't believe it's a missile effect.



[edit on 18/12/09 by tauristercus]

reply to post by ProRipp

A hypothesis was presented for "peer review".
Some problems with the analysis of the hypothesis are pointed out.

If the author of the paper (or others) sees fit he may:
a) Argue the points brought forth.
b) Reassess the hypothesis.
c) Blindly lash out at the criticism because it's...critical.

Two of the above fall under the category of reasonable discussion. Can you tell which two they are?


[edit on 12/19/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage
Listen Phage, mate, ive listened to your theory ! You made a couple of interesting points that i took into account i really did but at the end of the day it didnt wash ! I found two other theories that sit far better with me ! Which one of those is the correct one or a conglomaration of both i don't know but i know one thing in my own mind and you know whats comin ! It wasn't a rocket/missile/icbm/slbm or whatever bloody bm ! oh and Phage don't try takin the p1ss okay ?


[edit on 013131p://12America/Chicago19 by ProRipp]

[edit on 013131p://12America/Chicago19 by ProRipp]

Phage ... look, even though I don't necessarily agree with your point of view, however I'm respectfully requesting of you that instead of just coming down on and attempting to find every flaw that you can in what's being proposed, I'd like to see you approach the issue from another point of view ... now, I've read many, many, many of your posts in various threads but honestly, I've never ever seen you come up with an original analysis/hypothesis/theory that's uniquely your own to explain the observed facts and one that you're prepared to defend.

Rather, I see you as someone ready to jump into a thread and immediately start looking for ways to negate/contadict/dismiss opinions or points of view that don't agree with the way you see it.

So, with the Norway Spiral, I'd certainly look forward to you coming up with a rational and reasonable explanation that would stand up to a bit of scrutiny and incorporates the observed facts and data.
You say "it's a missile" ... fine, perhaps it really was ... but where's your analysis to back up your belief ? Don't bother telling me or trigNspirals or whomever else that we're wrong ... instead show/prove to us that YOU are right.

reply to post by Phage


You DO realize that the errors you've accused him of would simply result in a correction that further destroys the rocket theory, right?

I stated this earlier but you are saying the thing could be higher in the air than he is suggesting. That means it would have to be even bigger in reality to appear the same size to us here, and the gases would have to be traveling even faster. That's his whole argument as to why the rocket theory is bull: the gases would have to be moving at ridiculous speeds.

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by Phage

 

Listen Phage, mate, ive listened to your theory ! You made a couple of interesting points that i took into account i really did but at the end of the day it didnt wash ! I found two other theories that sit far better with me ! Which one of those is the correct one or a conglomaration of both i don't know but i know one thing in my own mind and you know whats comin ! It wasn't a rocket/missile/icbm/slbm or whatever bloody bm ! oh and Phage don't try takin the p1ss okay ?


[edit on 013131p://12America/Chicago19 by ProRipp]

Sorry about that ProRipp I will try again. Now an out of control missile I would have thought not made waves or spirals like that. I mean does not a missile keep going until it hits something? Then what happened.

No use banging your head against a brick wall folks, it is useless to tell someone else who is firm in their opinions, like me

It was not a missile or rocket. I am like a dog with a bone too, no missile, no rocket.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by JackWestJr]

Why do people have difficulty with it being a rocket? The famous long exposure shot that makes the spiral look unearthly smooth and even is a visual lie. In the videos it is obviously a spinning object ejecting plasma/gases, smoke...whatever.

It looks eirily like a bung rocket engine to me.

Size and distance are going to be impossible to ascertain without at least two accurate reference points. Is it big and close or small and distant?

What reference points are being used? You need the angle that the spinning object appears in the sky from two reasonably distant locations. The object is somewhere on your line of sight from the first location. The object is where the second line of sight intersects the first line. You need equipment and leg work. Photo's don't have enough information. You have to get out there and measure stuff.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by mrwiffler]

reply to post by mrwiffler

Size and distance are going to be impossible to ascertain without at least two accurate reference points. Is it big and close or small and distant?

You obviously either didn't read the OP's premise ... OR you failed to understand the conclusions reached regarding the upper and lower limits on the properties of the spiral, especially those regarding wave propagation velocity.

Nope, I read the piece. These two references are wrong:

1)In the lower limit, the spiral is taken to be directly over the
mountain in the photograph (9.63km away) and the velocity of the
“ripple” propagation is approximately 316.8m/s.
2)In the upper limit, the spiral is taken to be directly over the
White Sea (971km) and the velocity of the “ripple” propagation is
found to be approximately 32,873m/s

You need really good reference points to work out the position of the thing. The above statement shows that the OP is making assumptions based on images. You need actual measurements. The above stated distance and therefore speed are guesses.

I'm happy to admit to being wrong but it seems as if the OP is making the classic blunder of assuming you can calculate distances using a 2D image. You can't.




[edit on 19-12-2009 by mrwiffler]

[edit on 19-12-2009 by mrwiffler]

reply to post by mrwiffler


You have read the piece from TrgNspirals but have you also read tauristercus' thread ? Norway Spiral-Russia takes the Blame....

If not may I suggest you do ? Two theories that may just have the answer between them ?

Originally posted by mrwiffler
Why do people have difficulty with it being a rocket? The famous long exposure shot that makes the spiral look unearthly smooth and even is a visual lie.

Sorry but every single photo or video I've seen of the Norway spiral has looked pretty identical to me (besides angles and all that), so I wonder how you arrived at this conclusion.

Originally posted by mrwiffler
You need really good reference points to work out the position of the thing. The above statement shows that the OP is making assumptions based on images. You need actual measurements. The above stated distance and therefore speed are guesses.

I'm happy to admit to being wrong but it seems as if the OP is making the classic blunder of assuming you can calculate distances using a 2D image. You can't.

Would you like to suggest a lower bounds on the distance?

The author assumed two limits to his assumptions of distance, upper and lower.

Phage has already claimed that the distances could very well have been even larger than the ones the author assumed. However, that only supports his conclusion even more, by requiring even GREATER velocities of the already-ridiculously-fast "smoke" moving through the air.


So the only thing that will refute this paper is someone establishing some evidence for an even smaller lower bounds.


You can't tell physical distance from a single 2D photo, but you can tell from multiple 2D photos (even just 2) if you only know where they were taken from, which can be given away by closer surrounding buildings, etc.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by bsbray11]

I can't believe I have to post this again. So far every single expert in the field has said it was a failed missile. Those on here who think it's something else are like people thousands of years ago pointing at the sun and saying it's a god because they simply don't understand. I've had enough with being polite on this matter - people spewing this 'it's not a missile' drivel are making ATS look ridiculous. The evidence for it being a missile is everywhere, from the shipping warnings, to the clearly-visible exhaust plume extending all the way down to the horizon, to the two spirals caused by the fuel leaking, and the fuel being burned.

It's preposterous to claim it's anything else. Poor trigonometry isn't going to change that.

Originally posted by davesidious
I can't believe I have to post this again. So far every single expert in the field has said it was a failed missile.

"Every single expert" in what field, and can you support your claim?

If the "field" you are talking about is military research into rockets, you would be naive to totally trust anything those people tell you anyway.

Those on here who think it's something else are like people thousands of years ago pointing at the sun and saying it's a god because they simply don't understand.

Then we thought it was on fire, then when the first nuclear bomb was dropped we assumed it must be some kind of nuclear power, and now the evidence is mounting for an electromagnetic theory of the Sun's operation. Point being, we STILL do not fully understand the Sun or its complex behaviors. So your example really sucks.

I've had enough with being polite on this matter - people spewing this 'it's not a missile' drivel are making ATS look ridiculous.

YOU make ATS look ridiculous,

It's preposterous to claim it's anything else. Poor trigonometry isn't going to change that.

Where is the error in the trigonometry?


So far people have been calling foul on the distances used and then shot themselves in the foot immediately after by claiming the distances could be even larger, which only lends support to what the paper is saying.

Originally posted by mrwiffler
Nope, I read the piece. These two references are wrong:

1)In the lower limit, the spiral is taken to be directly over the
mountain in the photograph (9.63km away) and the velocity of the
“ripple” propagation is approximately 316.8m/s.
2)In the upper limit, the spiral is taken to be directly over the
White Sea (971km) and the velocity of the “ripple” propagation is
found to be approximately 32,873m/s

You need really good reference points to work out the position of the thing. The above statement shows that the OP is making assumptions based on images. You need actual measurements. The above stated distance and therefore speed are guesses.

I'm happy to admit to being wrong but it seems as if the OP is making the classic blunder of assuming you can calculate distances using a 2D image. You can't.

Which is precisely the reason that he provided an upper and a lower limit result ... because of the uncertainties.
In other words, a best guess and a worst guess ... with the actual result most likely falling somewhere in between.