[TarJak]

Originally Posted by yubba

this ought to keep you busy for a bit,

Now lets take a look at whats been stated to be proof of a Russian missile launch on that day ... namely the visible exhaust trail.
In the following images, you can clearly see on the horizon what appears to be an exhaust trail and has been taken as evidence of a missile launch ... in this case the launch of a Bulava missile on 9 December.

Now take a look at the following image that illustrates the "distance to the horizon" calculation.

For someone of average height standing at sea level, the distance to the horizon is approximately 5 kms.

Let's use the above calculation and rearrange it so that instead of determining the distance to the horizon, we use it instead to calculate the height.

Now, the distance from Tromso, Norway to the White Sea is approximately 800 kms. Plugging this value into the rearranged equation tells us that to be able to see the "exhaust plume" created at the White Sea from a distance of 800 kms, that the height of the plume will need to extend an incredible 40 kms into the upper atmosphere. If that wasn't bad enough, to be able to visually see that plume, it would imply that the exhaust plume had a width in excess of 10 kilometres !!
A height of 40 kms and a width greater than 10 kms ... all from the launch of a single missile ... thats equivalent to the exhaust plume from a shuttle launched in Cape Canaveral being seen 800 kms away in North Carolina ... somehow I don't think so !!!!

So, as has been shown, it doesn't take much analysis to arrive at the conclusion that whatever was responsible for the spiral effect above Norway, it could NOT have been the result of a failed Russian missile test ending in a spectacular fashion in the airspace above Norway.

Well, if a missile test could NOT have been responsible for the spiral display in the sky, what other options or possibilities would make more logical sense ?

It only took me 30 odd seconds to work out this calculation of his is based on the assumption that the photos were taken by an average heigt person at sea level and if not then the calculation is worthless. Is there any evidence to suggest this was in fact the case? The article mentions Tromso, in Norway. Tromso is built in a fijord surrounded by high mountains. Is there any information that these photos were take from sea level in Tromso?



This calculation falls flat on its face if the photos were taken from any higher than 50 odd metres. The argument is pointless without the vital information as to the height that the photo was taken from. Where were they taken? They could have been taken somewhere nearer to the launch site but unless we have that datum we have no case either way.