Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Israel - UFO or Missile?


  • Please log in to reply
723 replies to this topic

#676    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,320 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 29 July 2012 - 12:45 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

I do , of course get the sense that you are trying to help me understand.

I also have to try to accept the fact that as an air vehicle moves away from an observer, basically, it does not get smaller and smaller. and that no matter how far away it is, it will always be a point source to the human eye.

yah.

I have a very hard time with that.

what if the object was a fly at 100 miles?

well, just saying?!?!?! everything has limits.

Ok Polaris, the North Star, has the same Angular diameter as a 1/4 inch Fly at 248.12 miles! It's the amount of light not the Angular size that allows you to see it.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#677    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    ... And, the Right Jack

  • Member
  • 2,836 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 29 July 2012 - 12:46 AM

Problems with a Rising Missile Creating a Spiral in the Sky


Judging by vids of the Topol M spiral apparition, the spiral of exhaust the missile creates appears to have several "spiral arms", if you will, meaning, the Topol M missile must have several "exhaust ports" placed equidistant around the circumference of the missile, likely at the center of mass of the remainder of the missile (stage 1, 2, or 3). With that said, I wish to raise the following problems that I see with the missile spiral creation.

Problem 1. As the missile is seen making the spiral with thrust or effuse of some kind coming out of the exhaust ports and being lit up by the sun, there seems to be something terribly missing in the image, the main exhaust plume of the booster/thruster. Is that not also supposed to be lit up by the sun, and are we not supposed to see that plume, too? I assume it must be much bigger than the spiral created by smaller ports. Since the missile is at the center of the spiral and the entire spiral is lit by the sun, the main plume should be lit by the sun. In fact, the main missile plume should be visible practically the whole journey of the missile, even when it is not spinning spirals. But it's not in evidence at all. Where is it?

Problem 2. A rising missile spinning on its longitudinal axis and releasing some thrust or effuse from several special exhaust ports and making what appears to be a disk of some kind, but the disk would be in a plane that would only be exposing a front or face view of that disk to the people directly underneath the missile. People as far away as 1,400 miles would see the disk in the plane from an edge view only, somewhat akin to looking at a coin's edge, a sideways I , if you will, and from 1,400 miles away with no other dimensions of the object discernible, it would simply look like a straight plume. Yet we clearly see the "disk" from a front or face PoV, and it clearly has spiral arms. How can that be?

Problem 3. The Topol M missile travels at over 10,000 mph (4.77 km/s). In the few seconds that missile makes a revolution or spin, the originally released effuse would be many kilometers behind the last of the effuse to exit the missile at the end of the spiral creation. This would create a stretched image and perhaps not make a recognizable disk from any PoV. It would perhaps make some kind of long, multi-helix type figure of a plume, corkscrewing in the sky. But the "missile" spiral does not look like such a long corkscrew at all. It looks like the face view of a very pretty spiral.

interesting.

At this time, I would like to ask our missile experts here at UM, Messieurs Badsekov and JimOmberg, if they can run this special missile scenario on their missile simulator software and see what kind of results they get. I'm quite confused about all of  this.

thank you, and I await your results

Earl

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#678    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    ... And, the Right Jack

  • Member
  • 2,836 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 29 July 2012 - 12:48 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 29 July 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

Ok Polaris, the North Star, has the same Angular diameter as a 1/4 inch Fly at 248.12 miles! It's the amount of light not the Angular size that allows you to see it.


and the $million question is,, do you see it?

do you see a fly from a 100 miles away?

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#679    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 July 2012 - 12:50 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

I thought you were taking a hike?
Just because I've decided to take a break from attempting to help you understand doesn't mean that I'm going to avoid the thread altogether.  Nor does it mean that I'll not comment if I feel my commentary is warranted or if I just feel like commenting.

At this point you are one of three things as far as I can tell.
  • A troll, intentionally trolling the thread and the forum with nonsense that you know is false.
  • An imbecile, unable to recognize what is so blatantly obvious to everyone else on the planet.
  • Too proud to admit that you are wrong.
And yes, I know that none of these options paint you in a positive light.  If you want positive light, act in a more sensible manner.

I'll keep watching the thread in the hopes that you'll publicly confirm and retract your errors.  And make no mistake, you've made some very gross errors.  Your literal interpretation of "Over Israel" being the largest, but your ignorance and denial of the footage closer to the launch site being a very close second.  I sincerely hope that you can somehow bring yourself out of this void and into the light of reality.

But I'm not holding my breath.

As I said before, this debate was over long long ago.  I can't imagine anything outside of the above 3 things which would contribute to your continued rallying against what is so obvious.  Though I'm open to other possibilities if they can be substantiated.  And no, "you're right" isn't one of them.  The incident did not occur directly over Israel even though it was observed from Israel.

Cheers.


#680    Slave2Fate

Slave2Fate

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 29 July 2012 - 12:50 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:

can you see a fly from 100 miles?

who's kidding???

If the said fly was emitting/reflecting enough light (although that is extremely improbable) then yes. But really, what does this example have to do with anything discussed in this thread? Is there some sort of mathematical correlation between a fly at 100 miles and the exhaust plume that is being discussed or are you attempting to build a straw man?

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#681    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 July 2012 - 12:52 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

and the $million question is,, do you see it?

do you see a fly from a 100 miles away?
That isn't a million dollar question.  That is a retarded question.  And there is no relevant correlation between this stupid question and any point in the thread.

I'm tallying one into the Troll column.

Keep digging.


#682    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    ... And, the Right Jack

  • Member
  • 2,836 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 29 July 2012 - 01:00 AM

boonY,,

the true mark of a troll is one who does not contribute to a forum discussion and only occasionally creeps in to paw at someone and hurl names at them

I have been civil, despite the fact we disagree.

knock it off.

and btw,the same question goes to you too, can you see a fly in the sky from 100 miles away?

we'll see who is obtuse and a troll

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#683    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    ... And, the Right Jack

  • Member
  • 2,836 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 29 July 2012 - 01:05 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 29 July 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

If the said fly was emitting/reflecting enough light (although that is extremely improbable) then yes. But really, what does this example have to do with anything discussed in this thread? Is there some sort of mathematical correlation between a fly at 100 miles and the exhaust plume that is being discussed or are you attempting to build a straw man?

you missed a lot of it, my friend.

we were arguing over seeing a B767 from 1500 miles, I believe.

not a big deal. I see you have chimed in with, "yes you can see a fly in the sky from 100 miles away"

I am sure to see a lot of that as a response, I bet. it has a lot to do with being in denial.

the truth is you cannot see a "fly in the sky" from ONE mile. and I think ppl really know that.

it's called playing games or remaining in denial.

BTW, if they ALL insist you can see a fly in the sky from 100 miles, I will ask if you can see a fly in the sky from 1000 miles.

they'll cave in some day. so will you. EVERYTHING has a vanishing point

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps, 29 July 2012 - 01:12 AM.

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#684    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    ... And, the Right Jack

  • Member
  • 2,836 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 29 July 2012 - 01:06 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 29 July 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

That isn't a million dollar question.  That is a retarded question.  And there is no relevant correlation between this stupid question and any point in the thread.

I'm tallying one into the Troll column.

Keep digging.

I'll pretend oyu are on filter that I wish UM had

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#685    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 July 2012 - 01:09 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

I'll pretend oyu are on filter that I wish UM had
UM has an ignore feature.  You are free to ignore anyone's posts, including mine.  As they say, ignorance is bliss.


#686    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 July 2012 - 01:18 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

boonY,,

the true mark of a troll is one who does not contribute to a forum discussion and only occasionally creeps in to paw at someone and hurl names at them
No, a troll intentionally spouts nonsense that they already know to be false.  I'm hoping that you aren't in that category.  Honestly, I'm hoping for option 3, that you are just too proud to admit that you are wrong.  I find option 2 unlikely as you are clearly not an imbecile.

But maybe there is an option 4?  You are merely mistaken and don't yet realize it?  That is dangerously close to option 2...



View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

I have been civil, despite the fact we disagree.
Sort of.  You've been civil at times and not so civil at others.  I'll let you figure out which and when, but considering that you've ignored much of what has transpired in this thread (including some of your own contributions...)  I will await future actions on your part before making a final determination.



View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

knock it off.
No.



View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

and btw,the same question goes to you too, can you see a fly in the sky from 100 miles away?
Of course you can't.  That is why I mentioned that this is a retarded and unrelated question.



View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

we'll see who is obtuse and a troll
I think most already see it.

Of course those bent on anti-skepticism will rally behind you just because of your efforts to "stick it to the man."  But even they should recognize that your efforts are futile.  Some have already admitted as much in fact.  The only question now is whether or not you'll come to your senses and drop this ridiculous "Over Israel" argument.  The damn thing wasn't literally over Isreal.  Get that through your thick skull so that progress can be made.


#687    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 29 July 2012 - 01:19 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:


the truth is you cannot see a "fly in the sky" from ONE mile. and I think ppl really know that.

If the fly is reflecting enough light, you could see it.

Another proof that luminosity and not angular size is the crucial characteristic.

On STS-75 the 20-km tether snapped and flew into a higher orbit, where it remained for several weeks, slowly decaying.

The tether was the thickness of a telephone cord -- in other words, as thick as the body of a fly.

Hundreds of amateur satellite observers, including me, saw the tether as it passed overhead while illuminated by the sun.

Naked eye SAW the object, 500 km away or  more, no thicker than a fly. And 20 km long.

Maybe your concept of what CAN and CANNOT be seen is based on a fundamental misunderstanding

How do you explain so many of us seeing that sunlit tether?


#688    Slave2Fate

Slave2Fate

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 29 July 2012 - 01:23 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 29 July 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

you missed a lot of it, my friend.

we were arguing over seeing a B767 from 1500 miles, I believe.

not a big deal. I see you have chimed in with, "yes you can see a fly in the sky from 100 miles away"

I am sure to see a lot of that as a response, I bet. it has a lot to do with being in denial.

the truth is you cannot see a "fly in the sky" from ONE mile. and I think ppl really know that.

it's called playing games or remaining in denial.

BTW, if they ALL insist you can see a fly in the sky from 100 miles, I will ask if you can see a fly in the sky from 1000 miles.

they'll cave in some day. so will you

Actually I did not say that a fly could be seen at 100 miles. I specifically stated that if enough light were coming from it by way of reflection or emission then the light could be seen (although in hindsight I could have worded it a bit better). That is the point here. We are talking about the light coming from a distant object (missile exhaust plume being lit by the sun, to be specific) that can be seen for a considerable distance.

You do know that without reflected light our eyes are useless right? In fact everything we see is from reflected or emitted light. In essence it is the light from an object that we see, not the object itself. More light increases visibility regardless of object size.

Have a read of this if you want to learn about the eyes and their light sensing capabilities.  http://www.ecse.rpi....ple-Chapter.pdf

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#689    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 July 2012 - 01:26 AM

View PostJimOberg, on 29 July 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

If the fly is reflecting enough light, you could see it.
Just to be clear, you aren't seeing the fly in such an instance.  You are merely seeing light reflected from some point on its surface.

Yes, one could argue that anything that you see is nothing more than reflected light, but the point I'm trying to make is that you wouldn't be able to differentiate this from anything else.  And this is an important distinction.  From such a distance you wouldn't notice the momentary glinting reflection and surmise "oh, look at that fly!"  No, you'd barely even consider it.  It could be a mote of dust or a water droplet 100 feet away for all you'd know.


#690    Slave2Fate

Slave2Fate

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 29 July 2012 - 01:30 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 29 July 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

Just to be clear, you aren't seeing the fly in such an instance.  You are merely seeing light reflected from some point on its surface.

Yes, one could argue that anything that you see is nothing more than reflected light, but the point I'm trying to make is that you wouldn't be able to differentiate this from anything else.  And this is an important distinction.  From such a distance you wouldn't notice the momentary glinting reflection and surmise "oh, look at that fly!"  No, you'd barely even consider it.  It could be a mote of dust or a water droplet 100 feet away for all you'd know.

Conversely, if you knew there was a fly there and someone could somehow increase it's luminosity (just for the sake of argument) until it could be seen at 100 miles then at a certain point you could 'see the fly'. Not literally of course, it would still be the light that you're seeing however I'm thinking that is just semantics. :tu:

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users