Blue Spiral of Norway is an Einstein Rosen Bridge

C: Why is the event visible like a firework that faces us instead of one that faces downwards?

Since you all think it is the rocket spinning out of control, let’s consider for a second the law of gravity. The earth spins from West to east. And the earths pull would make any rocket that hasn’t crossed the outter limit of the planet, to get pulled back down. So considering that this rocket is going out of control and spinning it would then move upwards in altitude when the rocket was facing the earth and downwards when facing space. In that matter a 50 KM diameter circle would be within reasonable calculations. But it still doesn’t explain why the expended burned fuel from the rocket is spiraling and glowing active even after traveling outwardly at 625 Km a second for at least 10 seconds before disappearing.

That is also not possible. Rocket fuel is consumed quite immediately. It does not take more then 2 seconds for it to consume the liquid oxygen. At that height there is almost no oxygen. That simple really. And for it to travel 10 time 157 KM in ten seconds when it’s consumed in 2 seconds makes no sense.

Okay I almost forgot to mention this as it is one of the important parts of my explanation. How did I get all these numbers ? The Km per second and all.

In the thread Ive mentioned at first, the event horizon of the spiral is calculated to be about 50 Km of diameter. And the ripple effect of light extends over 100 Km. Now you all know that circumference of a sphere is 2PI time R s. R would be the radius of “25 KM”. So the total circumference of the circle that forms the main circle is 157.08 Km. Within that space

D : Why is light turning around the phenomenon at around 625 KM per second steady

Now this is the fun part Light travels at 300 000 km a second. So theoretically speaking the light inside the spiral going outwards is going about 625 Km a second per revolution. This is too slow for normal light particles. This in fact proves nothing more then the speed of the spirals revolutions. But it says something about the nature of the phenomenon.

Now each and everytime the HAARP facility in Gakona activates it’s elf emitters dozens of different light phenomena, similar to the aurora beaureales but in an unven way. Considering that there is an EISCAT facility very near it with the same microwave immiters as those from Gakona, it should strike obvious that it could be related to the phenomenon. If we consider the field of operation of the Gakona device, then between 250 and 400 km’s from earth is its operational theater.

Then wouldn’t it be possible that the cloud under the spiral, left by the rocket, could be in fact a conductor to these ELF? Possible. Microwaves imitted at a certain area with a combination of clouds and payload. Now that sounds more like everything needed to open up a rip in space time. Under that condition, the light moving at 650 Km a second make a lot more sense. Since the rip could be that of space and time. Involving particles needed to create this Einstein-Rosen bridge I have been talking about in the title.

Also since the rift at the center of the phenomenon would slow down time around the aperture and go outwards as it rips totally open. Once open in would rip the surrounding of everything. That would answer my G question: Why is there an explosion of absence of light that extends 200 KM afterwards and covers the stars.

And would also explain why the light around it (stars) would not appear because of horizon and and gravity changing phenomenon. All light would be curved and sent elsewhere.

Okay it’s time I take a break for today, but I will continue on tomorrow. See you then

reply to post by davesidious

Every single piece of "evidence" showing how the Apollo moon landings were faked has been blown to pieces.

incorrect

You are insulting the lives of the fallen astronauts, and the lives spent toiling away to further humanity

Fallen astronaughts have nothing to do with my post. You merely employ their image to gain sympathy for defending fraud. And, no apollo astronaughts ever fell while filming.
oh, and the fake moon landing video that they filmed definitely furthered humanity.
What it did was put alot of money into NASA and government contractors pockets, along with corrupt politicians.
Although, it did provide an excuse toward ending the space race with Russia.

just because you'd rather play "oooh spooky conspiracy I don't trust the government huuurrrrrr". Pathetic.

lol I would encourage you to reexamine the workings of the nixon administration. The moon landing hoax is really just a tip of the iceburg.

And, 'pathetic' is the term I would apply to your substanceless and heavily rhetorical response to my post.
Grow your brain some, and then feel free to get back to me, kid.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by stoneysauce]

stoneysauce : I would not worry, every time I create a thread this one allways derails it, and it looses it's mommentum.

That's why I tend to just ignore whatever he has to say to me. Because he never brings anything to the conversation but claim everything is a hoax and 2 phrases to say im not thinking straight.

I think he's some kind of gov shill

reply to post by KpxMarMoTT


You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, yet assume you know everything.

The rocket was moving at miles per second, in an arc from its launch towards the Kamchatka peninsula.

Rocket fuel is not consumed "quite immediately". It burns continuously until it is all gone. That is why, behind a rocket, you get a long column of exhaust, and not just a two-second puff. Ever seen the Space Shuttle launch? The smoke is coming out of the back for a bit more than 2 seconds

You are so massively ignorant of what you speak about, I don't even have the energy to try to help you any more. Countless threads have been created on ATS about the phenomenon, and each and every one points to it being a failed rocket, no matter how loud the baseless assertions from people like you are.

reply to post by stoneysauce


You, and the rest of the deniers, have no evidence to back up your claims, just loose speculation, conjecture, and a distrust of authority, and of science in general. There is no evidence we didn't go to the moon. None. And yet you are adamant that there is, which, to be honest, is pathetic.

Ok so because you say Im totally unknowledgeable, then it must be true.

And what is this about you wanting to help me? Help me do what? Relieve my ignorance? Why is it that you need to discredit me? Make me look for a goof, when all I am implying to you is that there is more in this story then simple missile test.

And so I am left to assume that you are less of an ignorant then I am? So what if Im ignorant.... What I do is learn about different subjects and I like writing about it. I really don't give a rats tail if you think my theory is bunk and full of holes. At least I just don't rant on people saying there ignorant because they think differently from me. Whatever .....

reply to post by KpxMarMoTT


It's not an insult to have your ignorance highlighted, unless one is so egotistical that they feel their knowledge defines who they are.

I'm helping you by pointing out that it doesn't help you learn by leaping to conclusions based on half-understood ideas.

I'm not discrediting you - unfortunately you did that yourself by showing everyone how you leapt in making assumptions for no apparent rational reason. I merely tried to limit the damage by pointing out how wrong you were.

You are not totally lacking knowledge, but you definitely should brush up on a few key areas if you are to try to delve into "mysteries" like this. If you don't believe the official (or evidentially-supported) explanations, first understand them, then show how they're wrong. Don't go wading in saying you are right without doing that, as otherwise people will simply scratch their heads, look puzzles, and ignore what you have to say.

I'm not saying you are ignorant because I disagree with you, I'm saying you are ignorant because you made some very fundamental assumptions which were patently incorrect, and didn't seem to think twice about doing so. Even if I agreed with you, I'd still call you out.

Sorry.

You know, I don't know if it is a missile. This is not because of the talk here on ATS.

Basically the night it happened I was watching it on the news and they showed very good video footage of the spiral. It was spinning at a very regular speed with propellant coming from both ends (from the front and back). I believe it only comes from one in a missile. I've been laboring for a while to find the footage that I saw with absolutely no avail. I found a whole bunch of other footage but not the one I saw and none of the quality.

I think I was watching fox news at the time. Nope, it was ABC found another broadcasting of it. They didn't show much of it though , it was rather brief and not nearly as clear or zoomed.

They obviously state it's a missile in this news cast. Just look at the spiral footage and see if you agree with me.



The only thing that gets me is notice how the thrust seems to come from both ends of the "missile".

reply to post by DaMod


It actually looks like the spiral is emanating from the back, and the side, which is perfectly congruent with an ICBM, especially one failing, or one that possesses new maneuverability abilities. Think of the arrangement of the two spirals as like a flower - the blue spiral is the stem, originating in the white sea, and the white spiral is at 90 degrees to it, radiating from around the blue spiral.

If you think of it that way, it makes perfect sense.

It really ticks me off when people say "spiral", because the spiral appears only on long-exposure shots of the event. There was no spiral in reality, just a plume of exhaust. Due to long exposure, i.e. camera's shutter being open, the plume painted a mysteriously looking spiral in the picture, but the image is not what you would see if you were there.

KpxMarMoTT,

Your eyes have fooled you, and failed you.

There was no "black hole" or "worm hole".

All there was, was a bunch of colorful smoke that was emitted from the center, and was ejected outward. When the emission stopped, the outward movement of the smoke continued, and that created the illusion of a black "hole" or "circle" in the sky. That blackness was an empty night sky..... not a black hole.


Basically, the missile created a huge expanding smoke ring.

reply to post by buddhasystem




That's not exactly true. If you watch the video, you'll see the spiral. I do agree that the long exposure shots tend to blur the spiral together, though, making it harder to make it out and distorting the effect, however.

Please excuse the inaccurate, alarmist title of the YouTube video - it's not mine

reply to post by davesidious


Hey that's the one I was talking about. Must have been watching MSNBC...

My argument is more convincing when viewed in higher definition on a large LCD, but that does show it better.

I was watching this on a 42 inch...... Little different...