Norway Spiral Mathematically Proven to not be a Missile

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. 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.

Davesidious ... go look at my latest post in trigNspirals thread where I challenge you to come up with a convincing case for missile failure creation based on the available data ... just as trigNspirals and myself have attempted to do.

Stop shooting your mouth off and come up with some reasonable data to back your position up ... are you up to it or will you continue to denounce everyone else who have put a heck of a lot more work and analysis into it then you.

Sorry ... double post

[edit on 19/12/09 by tauristercus]

Sure. Oh look, I didn't even have to conjure up baseless ideas of EISCAT or show everyone how I can't perform trigonometry.

My boss took one look at the vid and declared that is a laser projection.He should know he's been in the audio video field for 25 years and is considered an expert in the field.

Originally posted by davesidious
Sure. Oh look, I didn't even have to conjure up baseless ideas of EISCAT or show everyone how I can't perform trigonometry.

As was to be expected ... you're not capable pf providing a reasonable analysis of the event based on available data/evidence to substantiate your claim of missile failure.

Instead, you take the lame option of quoting a Wiki page defining Newtons Laws of Motion.

My expectation of substantiating your claim would be for you (Phage and others) to use those Laws in conjunction with the observable data and produce some meaningful results and conclusions.
Linking to a Wiki page as your "entire proof" is just so far beyond lame !!!

But since you feel that Newton is all you need to show it's a failed missile ... shall we take a look at newtons First Law of Motion, namely:

In the absence of force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed.

Take a look at the uniformity of the spirals themselves ... why are they so well defined ?

If the missile is moving (Newton again), you could argue that the reason they're uniform is because we're viewing a missile heading in a direction either towards or away from the viewer. In that case the missile would be travelling either eastwards or westwards.
Eastwards would be AWAY from Norway ... westwards would be TOWARDS Norway. In both instances, the diameter of the spirals would either increase or decrease ... ok, no probs there.

But wait ... travelling east means the missile launched from the White Sea (800 kms away) and immediately was moving further away from Norways horizon and over the curve of the earth towards Kamchatka, therefore making it smaller and smaller and harder to observe from Norway ... hmmm, immediate problem, wouldn't you say ?

However, the other option whereby the missile is heading westwards, TOWARDS Norway is not much better a solution and creates problems of it's own ... no self-destruct ... no noise ... no explosion ... where did the missile end up, etc, etc


So what other option does Newton gives us ? oh, yes .... the missile was stationary !!!
Do I REALLY need to continue with THAT particular line of reasoning ??


Anyway, thanks for yet again giving me an opportunity to show just how little effort you put into your claim for missile failure ... you give me a pathetic Wiki link ... and in exchange I give you yet another attempt at analysis using YOUR own "evidence".

Do you see the obvious imbalance in effort here ? And you have the gall and temerity to say I'm talking crap !!
I'm still waiting to see you put some actual work and sweat into substantiating your missile failure claim ... somehow I don't think I should be holding my breath !


Oh, almost forgot this little gem of yours ...

... or show everyone how I can't perform trigonometry.

I assume you can prove this statement ? or is this just a smear attempt to divert attention away from your own inability to analyze the data to sunstantiate your claim ?


[edit on 19/12/09 by tauristercus]

hey although I hate the fact phage likes to debunk everything. Perhaps you should thank him. There is nothing wrong with trying to prove something wrong.

That is exactly what the OP has gone out to do.

Whoever it was that said phage was being critical, I think thats a bit harsh in itself, Phage did state that there is logic to the methodology, and that it is worth expanding on.

I will ask the OP again to publish this in html or rtf, i hate reading pdf's incase aol takes over my computer *laughs*


Seriously though, don't give up debunkers. Much like science and religion, it's a case of debunking what... )

Just my 2 cents, hehe

Abductee

reply to post by tauristercus


by the way I could be wrong, but I'm not sure anyone's provided a reasonable explanation yet )

I appreciate, and agree with your opinions, but we must be more receptive to criticism, choosing our answers and analyses carefully.

Although it may be true they have done nothing to prove their alternative scenario, that does not mean we should stop trying to prove ours

Abductee



[edit on 19-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

Originally posted by UFOabducteebe
reply to post by tauristercus

 

by the way I could be wrong, but I'm not sure anyone's provided a reasonable explanation yet

)

I appreciate, and agree with your opinions, but we must be more receptive to criticism, choosing our answers and analyses carefully.

Although it may be true they have done nothing to prove their alternative scenario, that does not mean we should stop trying to prove ours

Abductee

[edit on 19-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

Look, I'm not disagreeing with you ... having opposing points of view gives us a much better perspective on the event in question, and could even highlight points that we normally might not have seen or considered.

But what is really boiling my pot is the situation where myself, trigNspirals and possibly others, go that extra yard and attempt to perform the best possible analysis given the quality of the data we have to work with. Based on this analysis, we reach a conclusion.
Whereas others are just so quick to jump in with their alternative opinion of the events cause but do absolutely NO analysis to justify or substantiate their alternate claim ... instead their explanation hinges on "it CAN'T possibly be anything else ... it HAS to be a missile ... it's SO obvious ...", so therefore the analysis that I and others have done is meaningless and to be disregarded in their opinion.

Well, it's certainly NOT obvious to me and many others that a failed missile was the cause !

reply to post by tauristercus


I've shown the simulation video before, and that uses only Newton's laws of motion. Russia admitted to launching a missile. There is an exhaust plume exactly consistent with the thousands of exhaust plumes missiles have launched before. The whole thing is so laughably simple it doesn't need explaining. ATS is one of the only places on the net where people are still baffled and confused by the event. Everyone else knew what it is - it's so simple.

Russia, as they said, launched a missile, and it failed by venting unburned fuel laterally, while still propelling itself forward. As the lateral leak wasn't exactly in line with the centre of gravity, it started to spin. A spinning body ejecting something will eject in a spiral, as we saw.

This is child's play. It's so mind-bogglingly simple. I don't know how you can't understand that a missile can cause exactly what we saw. You've not explained how it can't be a missile yet. I'm still waiting for that. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". My claim is far from extraordinary, yours is very extraordinary. You've yet to offer any proof at all, whereas I gave you links to Russia's admittance of a failed missile launch, the testimony of numerous rocket scientists and astronomers, and to the missile involved, and the laws of motion that explain how what we saw was formed - all conveniently located in a couple of Wikipedia posts. Not to mention the simulation of how a rocket can do what we saw.

And what have you posted? Links to EISCAT and HAARP, tied in with posts detailing exactly how little of either you know.

We're still waiting.

reply to post by tauristercus


howdy fella, I actually agree with you, I agree that this theory is far more believable than the other crap being pedaled. I've actually witnessed full blown paranormal events, still do to an extent, and have had a close encounter in my own office - I'm not a believer , I'm a know-er; but you have to see it to believe it first, to know it.

I guess my only point is, I was actually agreeing with you.. ;] we do not have different points of view, I just think we should be patient with those who would rather disprove a new theory such as this, indeed short of objecting to them all we can do is help them understand our perspective,

Peace out
Abductee

reply to post by tauristercus


You're definitely right that it is not obvious what the explanation is, that others seem to claim.

If one person can show me a simulation that proves the rocket scenario in the way it displayed, I'll happily believe it. Until then I maintain full agreement with you that asking questions is the right thing to do.

Even that said , I can't really disagree with finding problems with these theories, how else to make it better? I want you to make it better because i genuinely believe this is a paranormal event - likable to the 12 vile vortices.

I know its emotionally painful to be criticised, especially when people have spent a lot of time on them, i know how it feels to be involved in a shedload of work and get zero credit for it, for me it's working on some of Tesla's stuff - this sort of criticism cannot be compared to the attracted criticism and outright ridicule and in some cases, intentional mistreatment of my wish to ask questions.

Tesla was a genius, and unless you are - you should consider this a very small challenge. Although somebody said this is an extraordinary claim, in my opinion, compared to being abducted out my bed, or inter-dimensional sacred geometry of 369 it makes a very small claim indeed! So don't sweat, people like me are out here rooting for you.

Take criticism, improve your theory, prove the bastards wrong!


All the best
Abductee



[edit on 19-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

I've shown the simulation video before, and that uses only Newton's laws of motion. Russia admitted to launching a missile. There is an exhaust plume exactly consistent with the thousands of exhaust plumes missiles have launched before.

Except for the fact that the EISCAT facility apparently has launch capability (sounding rockets) of it's own (as shown by me in another post - go look for it) ... so now we have TWO possible sources for that exhaust trail.

The whole thing is so laughably simple it doesn't need explaining. ATS is one of the only places on the net where people are still baffled and confused by the event. Everyone else knew what it is - it's so simple.

Really ? Is that a fact ? Supply source here ..........
Hmmmmm ... news to me and I'm sure many other people.

Russia, as they said, launched a missile, and it failed by venting unburned fuel laterally, while still propelling itself forward. As the lateral leak wasn't exactly in line with the centre of gravity, it started to spin. A spinning body ejecting something will eject in a spiral, as we saw.

So Russia has actually ADMITTED and CONFIRMED a propellent leak and lateral venting ? Supply source here ..........

You've not explained how it can't be a missile yet. I'm still waiting for that.

Actually, yes I and trigNspirals have done just that ... perhaps the mathematics behind the derivation was to complex for you to follow ?

You've yet to offer any proof at all

Are you being particularly dense ? Of course we have !
Hello .... see the analysis done by myself and trigNspirals and our conclusions.

Whereas I gave you links to Russia's admittance of a failed missile launch, the testimony of numerous rocket scientists and astronomers, and to the missile involved, and the laws of motion that explain how what we saw was formed - all conveniently located in a couple of Wikipedia posts. Not to mention the simulation of how a rocket can do what we saw.

Testimony ? what testimony ? Go look up the meaning of the word before you use it !

Your appeal to Newton hasn't explained bupkiss regarding how the spiral was PHYSICALLY formed.

A couple paragraphs in Wiki ... and thats what you base your ENTIRE case on ... very sloppy research and very sad.

And what have you posted? Links to EISCAT and HAARP, tied in with posts detailing exactly how little of either you know.


We're still waiting.

Even sadder ....

Originally posted by UFOabducteebe
reply to post by tauristercus

 

by the way I could be wrong, but I'm not sure anyone's provided a reasonable explanation yet

)


Abductee



[edit on 19-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

You are wrong ! Both tauristercus and TrigNspirals have written extremely well thought out and researched papers concerning the Norway Spiral I suggest you read BOTH and it may swing you one way or the other !

Below is the best bs you will find round here (short of computer animations)

Lets say you build a really big railgun with rifled(spiraled) rails, say pull, shoot a missle (call this the clay pigeon), fire said railgun at said missle.

petewee to your rocket!

reply to post by tauristercus


The sources on Wiki are cited. The article isn't evidence in itself, but contains links to the evidence. I don't have to prove that a missile can vent fuel laterally - that happens frequently.

We have two explanations:

1. A missile failed
2. Some sort of newfangled science from EISCAT using technology no one knows about, doing something hitherto unseen

We know missiles exist, we know they fail. We know because of basic Newtonian physics that a missile 100km in the atmosphere, if leaking from the side, will form a pinwheel, creating a spiral of ejecta. That is simply unarguable. Russia issued a warning before the event to shipping, then admitted to it afterwards. Numerous missile experts and astronomers have said it was clearly, obviously a failed missile test. No evidence has been shown by anyone (even here on ATS) that it couldn't have been a missile.

We don't, however, know anything about this new EISCAT physics you are claiming exists, so first it is up to you to disprove the missile theory (and all the experts who agree with it), then you can demonstrate your EISCAT magic hypothesis (who only you and other people on ATS with no background in science agree with).

You are arguing from ignorance, and it's showing. You are making the extraordinary claims, so where is your extraordinary evidence? You've not posted anything, just guesswork about EISCAT and purported abilities you can't demonstrate for squat.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

The sources on Wiki are cited. The article isn't evidence in itself, but contains links to the evidence. I don't have to prove that a missile can vent fuel laterally - that happens frequently.

We have two explanations:

1. A missile failed
2. Some sort of newfangled science from EISCAT using technology no one knows about, doing something hitherto unseen

We know missiles exist, we know they fail. We know because of basic Newtonian physics that a missile 100km in the atmosphere, if leaking from the side, will form a pinwheel, creating a spiral of ejecta. That is simply unarguable. Russia issued a warning before the event to shipping, then admitted to it afterwards. Numerous missile experts and astronomers have said it was clearly, obviously a failed missile test. No evidence has been shown by anyone (even here on ATS) that it couldn't have been a missile.

We don't, however, know anything about this new EISCAT physics you are claiming exists, so first it is up to you to disprove the missile theory (and all the experts who agree with it), then you can demonstrate your EISCAT magic hypothesis (who only you and other people on ATS with no background in science agree with).

You are arguing from ignorance, and it's showing. You are making the extraordinary claims, so where is your extraordinary evidence? You've not posted anything, just guesswork about EISCAT and purported abilities you can't demonstrate for squat.

You missed something vital out in this passage:-

Russia issued a warning before the event to shipping, then admitted to it afterwards.

It should read:-

Russia issued a warning before the event to shipping, then after first denying it had any involvement, admitted to it afterwards.

Please do not ask me to provide proof of this, as i have linked sources to this in many previous posts on the subject !

Why did the "rocket" seem to stay stationary during the spiral in the air? There didn’t appear to be any wandering of it while "out of control". Can someone please explain?

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

No evidence has been shown by anyone (even here on ATS) that it couldn't have been a missile.

We don't, however, know anything about this new EISCAT physics you are claiming exists, so first it is up to you to disprove the missile theory (and all the experts who agree with it), then you can demonstrate your EISCAT magic hypothesis (who only you and other people on ATS with no background in science agree with).

Why do I get the feeling when reading your replies that you despise ATS members? Is it just the ones with “no background in science” or is it all of “them”? Also, when you say "We don't", who is we?

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

I've shown the simulation video before, and that uses only Newton's laws of motion. Russia admitted to launching a missile. There is an exhaust plume exactly consistent with the thousands of exhaust plumes missiles have launched before.

Except for the fact that the EISCAT facility apparently has launch capability (sounding rockets) of it's own (as shown by me in another post - go look for it) ... so now we have TWO possible sources for that exhaust trail.

You've obviously devoted quite some time, energy and emotion in coming up with a theory as to what this spiral was not. I'm no trig expert so I'm really not in a position to challenge the inner workings of your math. However you're not accounting for one major piece of evidence that goes against what your trying to show... the images of the missile exhaust plume that's clearly apart of this whole event. I posted these in your thread and asked for you to account for them but you conveniently ignored it.

So, I'm confused as to what you think it was if you're trying to show it wasn't a rocket. From your above quote though it seems you are suggesting now that EISCAT launched a missile?? So which is it that you believe? A missile or not?

And where's the evidence of missile launch from EISCAT?

Or please account for the missile plumes in these images. I know you've seen these already but... well you know, it's part of the reason why many think it was in fact a missile..
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b6caeb3e201.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3d1657d92f2f.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3111b7197e3e.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Those are really nice photos. Where were they taken and what direction is the camera facing?

[edit on 21-12-2009 by liveandletlive]