jonathanseagull said:

Pretty entertaining.

---

youbreakyoubuy said:

I mean, I want to believe, but...

---

youbreakyoubuy said:

This article is written under the assumption that the NWO  is real and the crop circles are signals from the "Cropmakers."  How am I supposed to swallow an egg that big?  I mean, I want to believe, but...

---

Quote:

A SUDDEN SURGE

Still not convinced? It gets better: the EISCAT ionospheric heating facility documented a major  surge of power usage -- right as the apparition was happening.

The power surged up to the maximum level the EISCAT facility is capable of generating -- nearly a gigawatt.

Look at the bottom of the graph to confirm that it was indeed the morning of December 9th, 2009:

---

Quote:

The spiral is much, much too perfect and multi-layered to support the official explanation that this is a rocket gone haywire.

---

youbreakyoubuy said:

Here's another gem:

Quote:

The spiral is much, much too perfect and multi-layered to support the official explanation that this is a rocket gone haywire.

---

  (His emphasis) That's a fallacy in reasoning.  It's called an Argument to Incredulity.  Just because it seems to good to be true doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.

---

No.  Intuitively I did not think it was a rocket.  It seemed too perfect; it was too HI-def for all of that.


But, just because something intuitively wouldn't happen doesn't mean that it won't.


The question I have to ask myself is whether or not Amini's mathematically derived conclusion is sound.  If it is sound, then I have to ask myself whether or not his calculated upper limit for the velocity of the spiral is correct.  If it is correct, then I have to decide whether or not it could physically happen.  I admit that 33km/s is pretty fast.  That's about 33 times the speed of a bullet traveling at 1km/s.  Light travels at 300,000km/s, which is ~300,000 times the speed of a bullet and ~9,000 times Amini's calculated velocity for the generation of the spiral.

For comparison:

the speed of a bullet is ~1km/s
the escape velocity of earth is ~11km/s
the fastest reentry speed of a man made object is ~13km/s
the orbital speed of the earth around the sun ~30km/s
the speed of our fastest space probe ~70km/s

The guy acts like these speeds are beyond comprehension or unobtainable, but they're not.  Here's a scenario:  rocket goes up, something malfunctions, and an addition of momentum (in a mostly dragless/frictionless environment) from an explosion or series of explosions gets that sucker spinning that fast.

How do we know that these speeds calculated for the event are impossible?  We don't.  Homeboy just makes the jump in reasoning.  He doesn't consult an outside expert to insure that his reasoning is correct.  He turns to the conclusions provided by Amini, an undergrad physics major.  That's what bugs me about this.

But, also intuitively, it seems to me that when something is on the edge of the atmosphere there is an absence of interference from other particles.... That is, the presence of a semi-vacuum wouldn't interfere with the geometric shapes possible.  Wilcock talks about the absence of sonic booms, but it's common sense to me that you don't hear sonic booms in space because there isn't a medium for the sound to travel in.  The guy talks about all this stuff, but he's not a physicist.  He's out of his element.  As am I. 
I understand that there are problems with my interpretation too.  Namely the fact that I assume what the environment is like 300km up.


Instead of relying on the conclusions of Amini, an undergraduate physcis major, let's get the perspective of an actual rocket scientist,

Quote:

Dr. Dimpfl, whose non-profit conducts missile research for the US Air Force and NASA, and who has carried out research on the way exhaust is emitted from rockets and the space shuttle...

---

Wilcock keeps making these...jumps in reasoning that maybe should be paid more attention to.

Ahhh...I've been editing this way too long.  Time to actually post.
I'll never make up my mind about what happened up there. 

Quote:

HAARP's success is down to the fact that it operates at much higher power than any other array running similar experiments, such as the EISCAT (European Incoherent Scatter) Scientific Association's antenna in Norway, which runs at 1.2 megawatts, explains Kosch.

---