Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
zoser

Israel - UFO or Missile?

724 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  1. A troll, intentionally trolling the thread and the forum with nonsense that you know is false.
  2. An imbecile, unable to recognize what is so blatantly obvious to everyone else on the planet.
  3. 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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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.

knock it off.

No.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.edu/~schubert/Light-Emitting-Diodes-dot-org/Sample-Chapter.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and Badsekov,

I forgot to mention to you... the reason why I feel I have to go with "800 miles high" for the Topol M missile is because you told me that the Minuteman missile went that high and that "all ICBMs are about the same", (they are NOT) and if I continued to go with the stats I had posted for the Peacekeeper ICBM, you would raise strong objections.

It has to do with being "ON THE SAME PAGE", Badsekov - some common ground. So I caved in to your 800 mile altitude figure to keep the conversation going and not hovering around that particular point ad infinitum.

I think it is safe to say now, that I - WE - are saddled with using 800 miles in altitude unless YOU change that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Indeed, but it would require knowledge of the point source for such a determination. You simply can't see a glint of light and immediately know what that glint represents in and of itself.

Hence my position that the entire question and line of argument being presented by Earl is total BS. More obfuscation and avoidance of the core questions that are actually relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, but it would require knowledge of the point source for such a determination. You simply can't see a glint of light and immediately know what that glint represents in and of itself.

Hence my position that the entire question and line of argument being presented by Earl is total BS. More obfuscation and avoidance of the core questions that are actually relevant.

Agreed. I just got caught up in the thought experiment of it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

no "IFs"

I said the "fly in the sky"

you know how much sunlight reflects off the fly.

play your game.

there is a vanishing point for everything

see a fly from a 100 miles.... come on, Jim you CAN'T be serious.l

another stall tactic??

I posed some questions about the "spiraling missile". care to take a crack at them, which is where your strength lies, not "flies form 100 miles"

LOL

good lord.

as far as the sunlit tether is concerned, I know nothing about it. and I don't care to comment on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as the sunlit tether is concerned, I know nothing about it. and I don't care to comment on it.

Maybe you should look into it as it is very relevant to this discussion. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a vanishing point for everything

Yes. And that "vanishing point" occurs when the luminosity of an object is no longer high enough for your eye's to detect. It's not about Angular size after ~1 arc minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I just got caught up in the thought experiment of it. :D

I tried... but apparently I liked too many things today...

likequotashadow.png

Took some effort to create that. Anyone else want to use it? Here is a direct link:

http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd460/booNyzarC/likequotashadow.png

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe you should look into it as it is very relevant to this discussion. :tu:

maybe they should look at my fly question as relavent.

maybe they should tell the truth when they answer

I gave an example that everyone knows of, a FLY. we all know what that is. I know nothing of Jim's tether

btw, now that you stepped in it, if you can see a fly from 100 miles and a tether from 500 kms,

how could this special Topol M missile go from west Kazakhstan to East and show off its cool SPIRAL, but it we can't see it's main missile plume the whole way?

care to answer?

glad you got in?

what you don't know, slave2fate is they are trolling me.

first, a certain poster in here says my question is really retarded then later in another post, he answers the question!! - saying you COULD see a fly from a 100 miles. but it was reatrded right?

meanwhile the truth is, you cannot see a fly in the sky from1/10th of a mile, and no, the question is not retarded, it has relevence.

your volley

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. And that "vanishing point" occurs when the luminosity of an object is no longer high enough for your eye's to detect. It's not about Angular size after ~1 arc minute.

nice shaman.

can you expand on that and tell me, if you can see the SPIRAL the Topol missile makes, why can't you see the main plume of the missile all the way across the sky from west Kazakhstan to east?

is there a vanishing point problem there for the one but not the other?

I believe you know what I am driving at, in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried... but apparently I liked too many things today...

likequotashadow.png

Took some effort to create that. Anyone else want to use it? Here is a direct link:

http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd460/booNyzarC/likequotashadow.png

I hadn't seen that before. :lol:

Maybe it's a Russian lead conspiracy! If they lie about missile launches who knows what they're capable of! ( A joke Earl, not meant to offend :ph34r: )

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.