posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:43 PM
I dont know if this approach has been taken yet, i only read to page 30 or so...
but lets look at the available clues?
First and most obviously not obvious is the trail that leads to the mountain. this does not mean necessarily behind the mountain, we are looking at
the curve of a sphere (atmosphere) and would appear to originate from the earth even if it didnt necessarily.
What the trail does tell us is that this object was fairly high in the atmosphere well before it crested the mountain. The trail has a cirrus
appearance and is refracting the sunlight from over the horizon in a way that ice crystals do. so the object would have to encounter a cold
atmosphere, cold enough to freeze the exhaust.
my proffesional oppinion (i am a meteorologist) would place this object above 20k feet, but below 50k feet.
i understand that this is a large gap, but hey we are gonna narrow it down as best as i can with what i got.
ok now lets look at the distortion of the trail by the upperlevel winds. there is a minor warping and would suggest that the winds at that altitude
were not that heavy. this rules out 18-25k feet at that long. because that is where you would find the highest winds. but there ARE winds... (mind you
this is all from the hip...)
the atmosphere that far north is not as "tall" as it is for us mid lats folks in the US and 50k feet is waaay up there.
i suggest that with that evidence the trail is probable around 35-40k feet altitude, definately in the atmosphere and not in space.
next, the blue spiral.
What gases do we know that are: 1 heavy enough to stay in the "spiral" form, and what gases do we know that have a blue signature?
well the big threee that i can think of are nitrogen, hydrogen, and methane.
we could assume that nitrogen is out of the picture considering that the atmophere is mostly nitrogen, and it wouldnt make sense for the spiral to be
so defined if you were releasing nitrogen into a nitrogen rich system... unless we aer talking about a liquid fuel that is being expelled from the
this is a toughy!
i would say that if it was a rocket, they were probably using some sort of liquid oxygen and nitrogen compound. this could produce the bluish hue that
we had seen, if not a rocket, it would suggest that whatever it is was definately expelling some sort of gas or pressurised liquid, and and either a
nitrogen or hydrogen rich compound to boot.
lastly the spiral.
in order for a rocket to produce such a primo spiral, it would have to be expelling some sort of gas or fuel from a part of the rocket that would
allow the rocket to continue to move in a forward motion while spinning.
this seems unlikely, but gyroscopic motions could stablilize a rocket in this situation right? like the way a top stays standing while it spins?
However, this would also meant that the leak would have to be perpendicular or nearly so to the housing of the rocket itself. if it were being
expelled from the rear, the fins of the rocket would stabilize flight and thus no spin. if it is from the front, the flight should be erratic. and if
it is from an angle to the fins, it would also be erratic... or should be.
another thought is that newer rockets that are trying to conserve energy have played with the idea of intentional controlled spin on order to increase
the kinetic energy of the rocket without increasing the amount of fuel required. this could also be the case, and perhaps russia is actually not
failing, but is testing a new kinetic building feature to a rocket, and they just didnt understand the upper atmospheric effects that certain fuel
mixtures may have, as in they may have underestimated the visual effects.
lastly the clue we have in the end of the video is the "black hole" that is really (as it appears to me) a change in the trajectory of the object in
question. the hole looks more like a punch cloud to me, and the diffusing of the blueish spiral further supports a liquid form fuel of some sorts
dissipating through atmospheric mixing.
so as i read the clues we have:
liquid fuel being expelled either intentionally or not
an initial altitude of about 40k feet (give or take)
a controlled kinetic spin (kinetic is not provable and the controlled may not be intentional...)
and an exit via punch cloud, which would mean the object exiting the atmophere (thus no falling debris)
Now here is my base hypothesis:
Russia develops a new rocket, and has been trying to test it. Thus they dont want the missle defense system over poland and such, right? They may have
stumbled on a way to increase overall kinetic value of a rocket, which would be nifty if you want to take out... say... a sattelite in low orbit. We
know that most low orbiting satellites that would be a possible target are polar orbitals, and yuo would have a much easier time hitting one near the
poles. Now say russia decides to test this thing near the poles in perpetual twilight, and forgets or miscalculates that there is a just so
atmospheric make up that would cause the propellants to freeze or something, causing the sunlight over the horizon to light up the high altitude
effects like a dern christmas tree. The rifling effect would not only increase the kinetic energy, but also reduce innaccuracy like rifiling in a gun.
Now all the world is looking and going "huh... what could that be" and russia denies denies denies in order to preserve theire pioneering technology
and keep it from other countries hands of study...