StringJunky Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 The point of my posts, I suppose, is to make people aware of the limitations of cameras and that they can only, most of the time, approximate what we actually see with our eyes..the camera will lie unless we are aware and compensate for its limitations. Photography was a night and day passion for me up 'til about 10 years ago and one of the skills a good photographer has to master is to calibrate its results with that of one's mind's eye in order to create a true picture, as seen or desired by the photographer. In a nutshell, the camera's sensor or film (as it was then) don't render the world before it the same as the human eye. This can give the impression of a scene that actually bears no relation to past reality I hope that makes sense, Captain, it is interesting that you are still sceptical, despite the reports from apparently high-level sources. I am mindful that the sheer weight of numbers saying and repeating the same thing reinforces the missile theory, when in fact it may not be true. Perhaps you might stick with this hypothesis of yours (or discover a new one on the way) and analyze the evidence more closely. Try and collect a body of evidence that supports your hypothesis and contradicts the present consensus. My mind is open,
toastywombel Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 The point of my posts, I suppose, is to make people aware of the limitations of cameras and that they can only, most of the time, approximate what we actually see with our eyes..the camera will lie unless we are aware and compensate for its limitations. That may have been true thirty years ago or so, but I would argue that cameras today can, most of the time, capture what our eyes see pretty well, and much of the time cameras catch what our eyes don't see. That is if the camera is used properly by the user. I have to agree with the captain though; I am finding it hard to believe it is a missile as well. There is a scientist Dr. Paul A. Reed who does not believe it is a missile either. http://strictlyhonest.com/it_wasnt_a_missile/
StringJunky Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 That may have been true thirty years ago or so, but I would argue that cameras today can, most of the time, capture what our eyes see pretty well, and much of the time cameras catch what our eyes don't see. That is if the camera is used properly by the user. Your caveat at the end of your post only reinforces what I said. Yes Toasty, modern high-end cameras are fabulous in automatic mode but even they would still be user dependent in non-average situations like that one (lowish-light/high contrast/moving object). Anyways! It would be interesting if someone could generate a plausible alternative hypothesis contrary to the official version. No ideas about flybys from E.T. please!
CaptainPanic Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 If it was something that was caused by the camera (photographs and movies), it would be highly unlikely that numerous cameras recorded the same event. Then one or two cameras would have recorded some freaky picture, but not all. Why does everybody keep pointing at the orange and keeps saying it's an apple because it's so obviously round and edible?
Moontanman Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Ok, Captain, i am convinced it's an alien UFO opening up a FTL wormhole in the upper atmosphere, hell I don't think you could design a better one than that for sure. Then again could it be some weird aurora effect? Was it far enough north to be the Aurora?
StringJunky Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Yes, I agree, in this instance, history shows that this looks like the case given the number of cameras involved. There are sufficient samples to discern the visual elements of the event that agree between the different picture sources and compile a more accurate impression in one's mind. One should always be mindful of instrument error. Don't forget, we are now 'wise after the event'...we were all shooting in the dark before...which was fun.
truedeity Posted January 9, 2010 Posted January 9, 2010 We'll I heard that the Russians denied it. What I thought strange was the heat signature of the inferred images were way outside of the range of any missile. And the Norwegian website depicts 18 layers in the spiral... Quite a display... Also there was reported a gravity spike equivalent to 20 bowing 747's. I actually heard that commented on a radio but would have to find some sources so I'm not stating that is the case... At any rate I would say its just unexplainable. And If it were a missile then its a very unique/one in a million/ display where a missile spinning out of control could look like that! I would still say unlikely to be something we can 100% agree on. However, I did write an article about this here. http://whoarethegreys.com/ufo-strange-blue-lights-seen-over-norway.html Conspiracy theorists have suggested that it's a HARRP experiment because of the blue jet leading back to the Russian HAARP facility. It could possibly be a political stunt on the part of the Russians in that Obama was in town. By this display they could be trying to suggest some intelligence. Which is very classical of Russian/Political Theme. I can tell you that the world govts. are very far advanced in science/technology now. We are at least 15 years behind the govt. They have jets right now that fly around completely invisible. So to say we know for sure what this is, is just a display of arrogance.
mooeypoo Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 We'll I heard that the Russians denied it. What I thought strange was the heat signature of the inferred images were way outside of the range of any missile. And the Norwegian website depicts 18 layers in the spiral... Quite a display... Yes, we have a whole thread here analyzing it, including evidence that it was, in fact, in all probability, a russian missile. Are you going to provide evidence to your claims or are we to just trust your word for it? Also there was reported a gravity spike equivalent to 20 bowing 747's. I actually heard that commented on a radio but would have to find some sources so I'm not stating that is the case... Yes, you do. At any rate I would say its just unexplainable. We just explained 99% of it in this thread. The fact you want to ignore the thread doesn't mean it's unexplainable, it means you're too lazy to read it and actually relate to the claims made. And If it were a missile then its a very unique/one in a million/ display where a missile spinning out of control could look like that! I would still say unlikely to be something we can 100% agree on. You'll be one of the few who do. Read the thread. In any case, you need to do much more than just "CLAIM" it, truedeity. I suggest you start reading our rules, my friend. This is getting tiresome. However, I did write an article about this here. http://whoarethegreys.com/ufo-strange-blue-lights-seen-over-norway.html Great self promotion. And just like this post, it has no backing or evidence whatsoever. We are to just trust you and ignore all other evidence because you say so. I can tell you that the world govts. are very far advanced in science/technology now. We are at least 15 years behind the govt. They have jets right now that fly around completely invisible. So to say we know for sure what this is, is just a display of arrogance. What would we have done without you telling us, truedeity, what indeed. For one, we would have relied on evidence and proper substantiation rather than empty, bombastic claims we are to just "trust you" on. You are ignoring a thread where we discuss ACTUAL evidence and observations and we supply some links and actual physics. Instead of uttering the first nonscience nonsense that comes to your mind, I suggest you read the thread and - if you have any problems with any of the claims made - debate with proper evidence, explanations and backing. Again, and for the last time, we are a science forum. We require scientific evidence and we back our claims and substantiate them. We do not go around yelling the sky's going to fall just because we think we're oh-so-smart than everyone else. ~moo
truedeity Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 Ok moneypoo you got me again. Hands up. I'm arrested. I guess you've had enough truedeity chasing anyway...I did kinda skim over the thread, because I really have read all of the evidence about it being a missile. The day it appeared on CNN. In my defense, I did support the fact that I thought it was a Russian Missile in the link I provided. But I also injected a cute wormhole theory, just to substantiate it as a topic to match the theme of my website. But I never stated that it was connected to the Norway Spiral incident. And, It's very hard to provide a reference for a memory of something you hear on the radio. And no I don't expect that it should be admitted to be anything more than opinion. Unless I can provide a viable reference. But that doesn't mean i'm not allowed to mention a memory. Providing a reference sometimes can be annoying for someone who has already studied. You cant just stereotype something as nonscience just because it doesn't come packaged with a reference. Let's say for example, you've never heard of string theory. And you call it non-science. And you say if it is science provide a reference. But for some reason I cant find a reference to support string theory. Even though there are plenty of references for string theory... So what if someone says something and it gets moved to speculation, and then later that person finds viable references? Then its the mods job to take on the humiliation and move it into the right category. And i'll be so happy if that day comes to you money poo! ---- Another example of a theory that has no viable reference evidence, but could be just as viable as any scientific theory is. The Dynamic Theory of Gravity of Dr. Nikola Tesla.... He explains the relation between gravitation and electromagnetic force as a unified field theory (a model over matter, the aether, and energy). It is a unified field theory to unify all the fundamental forces (such as the force between all masses) and particle responses into a single theoretical framework. Tesla said he had fully developed his Dynamic Theory of Gravity and "worked it out in all the details". This aether-based theory, which initially was developed between 1893-94, explained gravity and directly linked it to electromagnetic phenomena, explaining also that the sun and all stars emit "primary solar rays" which in turn produce secondary radiations. Tesla's theory states that the phenomena produced by electromagnetic forces is the most important phenomenon in the universe. According to portions from his theory, mechanical motions are universally a result of electromagnetic force acting upon and through media. Unfortunately, no mathematical details of the theory have officially surfaced. Because his work on this theory did not surface, does that mean it does not exist and Tesla was spewing hot air? I think that's possible. But Not likely... He could have given those documents to someone he trusted for safe keeping. The US govt. could have confiscated it and used it for technology research? All i'm saying is that we just have a theory. Just because their is support for a theory does not make it true, it just makes it popular. Consider that the popular opinion is not always the best choice. This was proven when Gary Kasprov defeated The World in a game of chess on a Vote-Per-Move basis. I'm really just in the middle of the road on this one. ----------- I'm not sure if this is the right reference for the invisible jet. Most likely is? http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A3a3730f4-c5f9-475c-be42-1fdc18846c1b&plck “We have seen rockets being launched from northwest Russia, and from the rocket range in Kiruna in northern Sweden, and from the neighboring Andenes in northern Norway, but nothing like this.” - Truls Lynne Hansen, Dir., Tromso Geophysical Observatory, Norway After the Russian government's denial on December 9, 2009, that it had not conducted any missile tests that could explain the white and blue light spirals over northern Norway, today on December 10, 2009, the Russian Defense Ministry now says a Bulava ballistic missile launch from the Russian Navy nuclear submarine “Dmitry Donskoi” in the region had failed. However, the Russian Defense Ministry would not confirm any connection with the white and blue spiraling lights over northern Norway. Adding to the mystery is Norway's concern that its government had no prior communication from Russia that any such missile tests were scheduled near northern Norway. Another speculation has been microwave tests of the ionosphere from Tromso, Norway, impacting the atmosphere in an unexpected way. But, ionospheric physicists in Gakona, Alaska; Arecibo, Puerto Rico; Tromso, Norway; and other facilities have been bouncing microwaves off the ionosphere for at least a decade of research. Any oscillation that humans produce in the ionosphere is immediately obliterated as soon as sun rays shine on any part of the ionosphere. However, spiraling lights phenomenon as seen and photographed over northern Norway yesterday has not been reported at ionospheric research sites. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think the Norway Spiral being was actually an experiment called "tequila sunrise" This is a direct-link from the EISCAT(HAARP type facility) official website. http://www.eiscat.se/raw/schedule/comment.cgi?fileName=200912099145&Start=0700&End=1000 TEQUILAsunrise (Transient Effects Quantification Under Ionospheric Low Angle sunrise). The idea is to look at the polar wintertime mesophere through the transientcaused by (scattered) sunrise around 8 UT. Interestingly, this happens tobe the maximum occurence time of the Polar Mesosphere Winter Echoes (PMWE). VHF: TEQUILA 2009 12 09 0700 - 2009 12 09 1000 Scheduled for 0700-1000 Notice the VHF time schedule for the experiment is exactly the same time as that the Norway spiral incident occurred. You should also find this link interesting in regards to the same experiment. http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/whatsnew/haarp/ And I am still open to the fact that this does not rule out other possibilities. And I already knew this before I posted.
CaptainPanic Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 Yes, we have a whole thread here analyzing it, including evidence that it was, in fact, in all probability, a russian missile. Are you going to provide evidence to your claims or are we to just trust your word for it? [...] We just explained 99% of it in this thread. The fact you want to ignore the thread doesn't mean it's unexplainable, it means you're too lazy to read it and actually relate to the claims made. I still have a number of open questions, which as far as I'm concerned means we didn't reach the 99% (which, I know, is a number not to be taken literally). If you feel like it, please address them. I am still not convinced we're dealing with a rocket. I'll just list my questions: 1. Why does the long plume glow blue? Possible explanations given: -It's still burning (but jet fuels don't burn after they left the nozzle - unless the entire rocket was designed poorly, including it's fuel). -Sunlight reflects off the fumes (but sunlight generally is red / orange / yellowish in the morning, even on high strato-clouds) 2. Why are there regular patterns if the atmosphere is turbulent (it's a phenomenon called "wind")? People wrote: -It is in fact turbulent if you look closely. (But it's not distorted like normal plumes...) 3. Why is the plume more broad higher in the sky? I assume that the spiral thingy is caused by the bright flames of the rocket engine itself. No answer was given at all -Normal plumes become more narrow because the rocket moves away from the viewer (up). Of course, this is said to be a malfunction, so it might have crashed... The only explanation is that the rocket was moving toward the viewers. So, the Russians launched their rocket directly at the Scandinavian peninsula... Yet nobody seems worried about this. And I also wrote a few points which could possibly lead to the HAARP kind of things. I'm not part of the "conspiracy theorists"... I just have valid questions. I don't want to talk about intentions, or our governments being good or evil. I just have questions. 4. Three questions a. Can you excite electrons using radio waves in molecules or ions present in our atmosphere, including the ionosphere, using using radio waves in the range of 224 MHz up to 931 MHz? b. Can radio waves interact with ions (or neutral molecules) and thus create circular patterns? c. Would the above 2 questions be answered differently is the frequency of the waves emitted was different? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI just realized another question I have: With a rocket failure, you would expect a single spiral, not a double one.
tyrone Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 That may have been true thirty years ago or so, but I would argue that cameras today can, most of the time, capture what our eyes see pretty well, and much of the time cameras catch what our eyes don't see. That is if the camera is used properly by the user. I have to agree with the captain though; I am finding it hard to believe it is a missile as well. There is a scientist Dr. Paul A. Reed who does not believe it is a missile either. http://strictlyhonest.com/it_wasnt_a_missile/ I'm sorry for the confusion but the link you mentioned has moved to here
mooeypoo Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 I don't know how much I take this site as credible, honestly. Ignoring the spelling mistakes (that don't add much cred to this), their linked sites suggest they have an agenda themselves in promoting conspiracy theories. If you can find this in any other sites to improve the credibility, it would help. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedlooked up "Dr Paul A Reed" and all the posts I found have *the same spelling error* (suggested they're all copies), and none was from a credible site. The fifth or sixth result is this thread. I couldn't find any information about the so-called Norwegian scientist either.
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 I noticed the post predicted that in one week the whole world would know but the post was first dated almost a month ago.
tyrone Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) I don't know how much I take this site as credible, honestly. Ignoring the spelling mistakes (that don't add much cred to this), their linked sites suggest they have an agenda themselves in promoting conspiracy theories. I think you're reffering to my site here...I'm doing my best to have a nice website. My experience with wordpress is 3 months so I'm still learning. The previous one, strictlyhonest.com didn't go well... lots of traffic but no feedback (staring at comments all day and each day without seeing any feedback) so that's why I started over and made the site you're referring to. The spelling mistakes are due to the fact that I'm living in the Netherlands and Dutch is my primary language. I'm open to learn but nobody tells me which words or sentences are wrongly spelled, so I can't improve my English this way. The reason why I'm doing all the efforts to publish in English is because I think some subjects need to be known worldwide and not just in my country. I don't have an agenda to promote conspiracies because as you can see, I don't cover topics like illuminati, nwo, h1n1, 911 on purpose. The links to those conspiracy websites were randomly chosen (I didn't know what links to use) but if it's giving my website a negative feeling or if people think I'm having a weird agenda, I will change them. Also there is no team behind my website, I'm doing it all alone for fun to see if I'll get an interactive website after a while. (that's why there is no big archive yet and I'll just post 2 articles a day because I have a job as well and my girlfriend also needs some attention) If some information seems false afterwards, I'll edit that particular post to say that it's false.... I'm no bad person. I have no bad intentions at all and just want the best for all people. Just wanted to let you(and the world) know. Greetings, Tyrone http://apophis.tk Edited January 16, 2010 by tyrone typo
mooeypoo Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 I think you're reffering to my site here...I'm doing my best to have a nice website. My experience with wordpress is 3 months so I'm still learning. The previous one, strictlyhonest.com didn't go well... lots of traffic but no feedback (staring at comments all day and each day without seeing any feedback) so that's why I started over and made the site you're referring to. Don't get me wrong - the site itself is nice, it looks fine. The problem is that when we rely on a *claim* then the claim needs to be supported. When a claim only appears in a single site - and the site is quite obviously a private site, that is not a government or anything like that - and the names this single site refers to appear onwhere else other than in this site (or other sites that clearly copied from it) then the credibility of the story is low. It has nothing to do with how your site looks, how well you write or how much traffic you may have. You could have as much traffic as Amazon.com and the specific story would still have very little credibility.. So.. really, it isn't personal. Good job on the site, cheers, really. But we can't take that story as credible, even if your site was the best looking site on the face of the internet. I don't have an agenda to promote conspiracies because as you can see, I don't cover topics like illuminati, nwo, h1n1, 911 on purpose.The links to those conspiracy websites were randomly chosen (I didn't know what links to use) but if it's giving my website a negative feeling or if people think I'm having a weird agenda, I will change them. The general rule is this: if a story appears nowhere else than in a conspiracy site, it is probably a conspiracy theory. So, if you want to increase the credibility of posts in your site, you need to increase your standards of where you pick material from and how you support it. Also, if I were you, I'd add an 'about' page telling us who/what you want to achieve with that website. The lack of one was another thing that raised my suspicion about the site not being credible. It seems like you're hiding something. Also there is no team behind my website, I'm doing it all alone for fun to see if I'll get an interactive website after a while. (that's why there is no big archive yet and I'll just post 2 articles a day because I have a job as well and my girlfriend also needs some attention)If some information seems false afterwards, I'll edit that particular post to say that it's false.... I'm no bad person. I'm not saying you are, and I don't think you are, but if you post stories without knowing if they're true (as you say 'worse case you'll correct them') then your standard is lower than our standard, and we will lower the credibility of the site and the post. It's not saying you're a bad person, it just says that the information on your site is not supported and might be false, and probably is false. You'll need to up your own standards of what you post in your site and how you support it if you want to change that... ~moo p.s - The first spelling that caught my eye is your title, where you write "A scientists" --> erase the 's' in scientists. Or erase the 'a'. It's either single or plural, but you need to choose. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedtyrone, take a look at the comments in that page: http://apophis.tk/it_wasnt_a_missile/ the readers of your site themselves say what I just did -- that the information is unverified and lacking credibility. You need to make a decision; if you want a site that people trust, you have to do some checking before you post stuff. Specially today in the "age of google", where verifying what you post takes no more than a few minutes.
tyrone Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 The general rule is this: if a story appears nowhere else than in a conspiracy site, it is probably a conspiracy theory. So, if you want to increase the credibility of posts in your site, you need to increase your standards of where you pick material from and how you support it. Also, if I were you, I'd add an 'about' page telling us who/what you want to achieve with that website. The lack of one was another thing that raised my suspicion about the site not being credible. It seems like you're hiding something. Thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate it and understand your points which I can't argue.
truedeity Posted January 18, 2010 Posted January 18, 2010 I have a article on this that is still "in the works", ignoring the section about tesla from this link( http://whoarethegreys.com/norway-spiral-explained.html ) can someone dispute my claim that it wasn't an EISCAT experiment named Tequila Sunrise? I think they had modulated the magnetosphere with a combination of specific ELF or VLF frequency... prob. to study weather conditions, or a possible display of level of intelligence by the Russian govt. if at all it having something to do with obamas nobel prize?
Recommended Posts