Spectacular Phenomena In The Sky. What Is It?

page: 123
429
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


You will ALWAYS get the phew who will claim "everything has a natural explanation"... even if a ghost appeared right in front of them, and whispered to them "I am here" there are those people who will claim "this is nothing more than reflected light from my shiny shoes which hit my retina at a 15 degree angle, and my brain interpreted it as a ghost, and the auditory part is just my brain making me believe it was a ghost".... and if several people see the same thing they call it "group histeria" or give it some other name....


It is good to have a skeptical mind, but not being closed minded. People, no matter how much knowledge they possess are not "know it alls", but there are those who will always claim "everything has a natural explanation"...

As to what this is? I really don't know, but as i said in the other thread it does seem that the source is coming from the ground behind the mountains probably.




[edit on 16-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TallWhites
 

Ok.
330 km from the center of the restricted area.


Here's the edit history for the wiki page
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Seriously guys!

This is a rocket.

Let's start with the STORY.

Russians warn airplanes and whatnot from entering the exact space the phenenomen occurs in long before it occurs.

Russians had plans of launching a missile.
IF the missile failed... HOW many failed missile launches have russia admitted?
A grand total of 0.
They're denying it because they have no reason to confirm that their launch failed -- that would be like saying "AH -- We TRIED to build a long distance missile, but we simply couldn't get it to work!"

That's not very russian.
What IS russian, is denying that anything ever happened.

OVER to the phenenomen itself.
It is sunrise.
That is why the blue column can be seen: It's sunlight reflected in the vapor.
It is a missile, in the sunrise.
That is why there's a rocket trail at the bottom of many of the pictures.
The rocket failed, and at some point it began to spiral.

What happens when something cylynderical has a leak on one side, leaking gas at a CONSTANT RATE with high pressure?
You get a constant pattern.
Like shaking a can of soda and punching a hole in the side, it spirals.
The only difference between this missile and previous failed missiles is that it spiraled like a broken can with too much pressure leaking a little gas at high pressure, and didn't critically fail; It didn't blow up like failed missiles typically do.

High pressure causes the spilling gas to spread out fast, and causes the rocket to move around FAST.
Anyone who've seen a chimney on a day without wind have seen it without the spiral effect:
A smoke trail going straight.
(Edit: The analogy is pretty accurate: The hot gas coming out of the chimney is almost invisible, it's only when it cools it turns into smoke)

Now add lots of pressure: A smoke trail beeing THROWN out of a chimney.
Then make that chimney spiral:
It produces the same result:
Gases are absorbed by the atmosphere WHILE moving away from the center, that is why smoke from a chimney doesn't make clouds: It dissapates.
The same happened to the gases from the missile.
BUT -- the gas don't "dissappear" -- it DOES "color" the sky.
Which explains the "black hole": The black hole is where the missile is -- where the gases were "thrown out from".

Because the gases were leaking FAST, there's little to no gas NEAR the missile itself, because it was all thrown out AWAY from the missile.
THEN, the dissapating fuel/gases color the sky around the failing missile white because the dissapating fuel doesn't "disappear", it slowly becomes a part of the air -- and while you can't really see that the sky is colored by the event, the "black hole" is actually the SAME COLOR AS THE REGULAR SKY -- it's just not filled with dissapating gases like the sky AROUND the missile.
Just open a picture, compare the color of the sky with the color of the black hole.
Not the sky next to the "hole" -- not the sky filled with gases.
The sky far away from the hole.
It's the same color.
It's the same thing as the classic chessboard where A and B are the same color:
en.wikipedia.org...
The hole is A.
The leaking gases is the white boards next to A.
The regular night sky is B.

BECAUSE the sky gradually goes back to the natural color, the "hole" looks like it's darker than the sky.

Summary:
1: There's a clear missile/rocket smoke trail up till where the missile fails, it can be seen on several of the pictures.
2: Any can with high pressured gas leaking large amounts of gas will spiral if the gas doesn't cause the object to move in one specific direction.
A hole in the side of a missile will cause it to spiral, while a hole in the bottom will cause it to fly.
This is clearly a hole in the side of a missile.
3: There's no black hole, just an area where there's no spill gas like the sky near the dissapating smoke/gas.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ADW1983]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ADW1983
 





Russians had plans of launching a missile. IF the missile failed... HOW many failed missile launches have russia admitted? A grand total of 0. They're denying it because they have no reason to confirm that their launch failed -- that would be like saying "AH -- We TRIED to build a long distance missile, but we simply couldn't get it to work!"


I thought they did admit to it.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by kirksteruk2k10
 


Ahh...a lover not a fighter. Good to see.
BTW There's something on your nose..a little brown spot...could be dust.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by rusethorcain]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TallWhites
Thats the part that doesnt make sense to me either.
If there's anything Russia has lots of its open space to launch one of these things. Why not do that in Siberia, why so close to a NATO country?!


TW, you're using your own ignorance as supposed supporting evidence for your conclusion.

The missile was launched right next to Russia's main missile sub bases and test facilities. They were built there because they are regions least ice-troubled on the entire northern coast, and closest to Western countries because -- are you following me now -- those countries are the targets of those missiles in case of war.

What makes sense to the entire rest of humanity somehow baffles you.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by TallWhites
Thats the part that doesnt make sense to me either.
If there's anything Russia has lots of its open space to launch one of these things. Why not do that in Siberia, why so close to a NATO country?!


TW, you're using your own ignorance as supposed supporting evidence for your conclusion.

The missile was launched right next to Russia's main missile sub bases and test facilities. They were built there because they are regions least ice-troubled on the entire northern coast, and closest to Western countries because -- are you following me now -- those countries are the targets of those missiles in case of war.

What makes sense to the entire rest of humanity somehow baffles you.


Why dont you take a chill pill and mellow out for a while, your posts reek of smugness and condescension. I didnt know those were the reasons the Russians built a sub base there. Contrary to you I dont know everything.

You're highly annoying btw.
Try to debate without making yourself look intellectually superior, because you're far from it



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TallWhites
 

Ok.
330 km from the center of the restricted area.


Here's the edit history for the wiki page
en.wikipedia.org...

OK, but thats still very close to Finnish border.
One stray missile could easily be perceived as an attack on NATO



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by TallWhites
Thats the part that doesnt make sense to me either.
If there's anything Russia has lots of its open space to launch one of these things. Why not do that in Siberia, why so close to a NATO country?!


TW, you're using your own ignorance as supposed supporting evidence for your conclusion.

The missile was launched right next to Russia's main missile sub bases and test facilities. They were built there because they are regions least ice-troubled on the entire northern coast, and closest to Western countries because -- are you following me now -- those countries are the targets of those missiles in case of war.

What makes sense to the entire rest of humanity somehow baffles you.



WRONG! ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

Tactic Missile: are palced near the borders (mid range 500/5,000 Km)

Strategic Missile: ICBM means "Inter Continental Ballistic Missile" (more than 5,000/11,000 Km)
The "Bulava" SLBM (Sub ICBM) is a STRATEGIC MISSILE!

The suppose "test" is a test of an ICBM missile and its presumed target was from Arkhangelsk (White Sea) to Kamchatka Peninsula (Pacific Ocean).



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Sorry if you have seen these before but these (esp the first) youtube video are really pretty convincing. Now I am thinking maybe it wasn't JUST a rocket we saw.

UFO or missile trace? Mystery spiral lights over Norway- REVEALED update
www.youtube.com...

Russians Testing Missles or Project Blue Beam?
www.youtube.com...

Giant Ring In Moscow Sky: Project Blue Beam Practice?
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
The "long exposure" explaination doesn't hold water at all, as there are several videos showing the spiral too.


Pause the videos and count the number of well lit 'rings' of uniform brightness. There are far more in the long exposure photos than the high-ISO photos and videos. It's still impressive in the videos and high-ISO shots but not the same at all.


Edit: Changed 'rings' to well lit 'rings'.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
More videos of a missile leaking gas out of the side, causing the missile to spin around, spreading the high-pressured gas around in a vortex in a steady stream untill the pressure is too low and the the effect disappears as the gaseous remains spread out into the air...
The fact that it's sunrise explains the blue light, as the sun gets reflected down through this gas.

The only problem is to find out WHAT vaporized gas or mixture of gases causes a blue reflection in sunlight when the gas freezes.
...

Seriously guys.
How many times have you actually seen a missile spin around spreading gas into the athmosphere many miles above the earth's surface where the air temperature is waaaaaaaaaaay below any temperature we've ever had down on the surface and air pressure incredibly low, allowing high-pressured gas fumes to spread much further than down on the surface?
You DO realize that high-pressured gas becomes even MORE pressured the less pressure there is outside the missile, right?
Because the pressure from the outside is much smaller than down on the surface, causing the gas to expand?

Last time a can of shaken beer burst and spun around in the store I worked at, I didn't assume it was aliens or the CIA or NASA causing the box to spin around in a perfect circular pattern spreading a line of beer out all over the floor in a helix-- I looked for the freaking russians to find out where the heck they were and what they were doing!

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ADW1983]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
In answer to your many questions, how the heck should we know?
I'll just e mail the Russian military and ask huh? I'm sure they won't mind since you are an ATS poster after all.
WHY is it incumbent on those of us that have figured out it was nothing more than a missile to explain every minute technical detail? And who know if your questions have an validity anyway. Though many of you imagine yourselves to be experts all of a sudden in this field ( ), I freely admit I'm not!
But I don't need to be to see the obvious, I can add 2 and 2.
It WAS a Russian ICBM



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TallWhites
OK, but thats still very close to Finnish border.
One stray missile could easily be perceived as an attack on NATO


Where did you ever get the notion that Finland was a member of NATO?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADW1983
More videos of a missile leaking gas out of the side, causing the missile to spin around, spreading the high-pressured gas around in a vortex in a steady stream untill the pressure is too low and the the effect disappears as the gaseous remains spread out into the air...


This is why I'm not ready to assume the third stage failure CAUSED the spiral -- because a failure would have probably behaved exactly as you correctly described, the effluent flow diminishing as pressure dropped, and finally dribbling to a halt.

But the videos show different. They show a sharp cut-off of spiral-feeding effluent, as a fairly uniform flow (two flows, actually) from the third stage (presumably) SUDDENLY drops to invisibility. Look at it again.

Since spirals have been seen on launchings in the past, including launchings that turned out to be successful, I'm also reluctant to connect the 'failure' and the 'spiral manifestation' as cause and effect, not quite yet, thank you.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by TallWhites
OK, but thats still very close to Finnish border.
One stray missile could easily be perceived as an attack on NATO


Where did you ever get the notion that Finland was a member of NATO?


You are right, technically they are not part of NATO.
However, they are a key NATO military ally: www.otan.nato.int...



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I think the REAL problem here is that the explaination for this one actually IS, exactly, "rocket science".


Oh.
And let's not pretend we have EVER seen missiles get holes on the SIDE before.
We've seen rockets fail critically and go out of control, flying in circles or all over the place, but that's still the rocket flying around using it's now broken rocket engine or having lost it's tail or otherwise spewing out gas from the bottom, causing the missile to act like... a missile.
Remember that the temperature is faaaaar below 0 up there, and that whatever is inside that missile is going to freeze quickly.

In addition to the pressure rising on the inside compared to the outside as the missile gains altitude, the outside temperature goes from -10 degrees celsius on ground level to -100 degrees or lower many miles up in the air.
Very low atmospheric pressure on the outside, very high pressure on the inside -- fuel freezing temperatures outside.
In addition, gas cannot readily freeze under high pressure -- pressure lowers the freezing temperature of all matter -- but IF the matter is cold AND under pressure WHILE LEAKING pressure, it will instantly freeze once the pressure is low enough on the inside of the missile.
Which is what I think is what happened in the end: It finally froze after losing most of the gas, when the pressure was low enough for the gas to freeze/solidify inside the missile.
Like a beer can in the freezer, if you punch a hole in it after half an hour, it wil spin wildly for a few moments -- THEN the content insta-freeze and the jet-stream of beer turns into a ice and only some fizzling and bubbles come out of the hole that just moments ago spewed out beer in all directions.
(All directions because the can spins around)

Before freezing, the gas was either gaseous or liquid, freezing instantly as it was sprayed out of the missile and into the bloody cold and very, very thin air.
(The blue light comes from sunlight beeing reflected through ice crystals in the gas)

And finland thrives on it's neutrality.
Last time the russians came knocking on Norway's back door, they got Finland's permission to walk through their backyard and visit norway if they didn't step on the flowers or break their bench.

Norway has gots heaploads of tactical coastline, and oil-resources and fishing resources off-shore, Finland doesn't have anything of interest that Russia can readily benefit from.

So while I understand Finland's stance in the matter -- "better get walked over than plowed down" -- they DID tell the russians that they could attack norway through finland back in the eighties.

Finland doesn't really need to be a part of NATO to be safe, AND they need to NOT be a part of NATO to be safe.
The country is really stuck between the rock and a really cold hard place...

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ADW1983]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ADW1983]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ADW1983]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ADW1983]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Here is a very different look at what was going on with the spiral.
Hard to call this a rocket -
...www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
So this OTHER rocket with the burnt fuel reflecting blue light, ALSO in the sunrise like the previous rocket, is evidence of an UFO even though this rocket spirals out of control as it critically fails -- as opposed to the rocket seen in norway which SPINS out of control?

...
And surely this couldn't have been a russian rocket, seeing that it's footage from russia from the date of another russian missile launch?




It is good to have a skeptical mind, but not being closed minded. People, no matter how much knowledge they possess are not "know it alls", but there are those who will always claim "everything has a natural explanation"...

I am open to whatever the evidence suggest, and will not believe anything without proof.
Non-skeptics don't always believe what the evidence suggest, and will believe anything without proof. Or rather; they will believe any ONE thing -- they won't believe more than one at the time, and are just as close minded as skeptics about the most of the (infinite number of) supernatural "possibilities".
I will believe ANYTHING, as long as there's evidence for it.
I am not close-minded, I am rational.
On ghosts. Our eyes see light; Our eyes are specialized cells with chemicals that react to the light (from the visible light spectrum).
The same light spectrum can be seen by cameras (That AAAND light that's OUTSIDE the spectrum we can see; Infared, ultraviolet, x-ray, and light with frequencies above red and below indigo: Between the rainbow and the inverted rainbow is light of frequencies invisible to our eyes).
If our eyes can see ghosts, cameras can "see" ghosts, and thus ghosts can be seen on cameras.
Yet, no ghosts have been caught on camera -- but we KNOW that old and rotting wood in houses produce hallucinations over time. Well, they fill rooms with gas, which drives out the regular air, causing us to hallucinate because of the lack of air (we daydream because we're partly losing conciousness due to slow suffocation).
Thus, the next time I see a ghost, I will videotape it on a mobile-camera -- and if the picture is blank, I'll just open the window and get some fresh air.
(Our eyes are chemical reagents that react ONLY to the visible light, our BRAINS on the other hand can see anything it wants to -- it's just that its' not beneficial to see things that are not there, that is why we only hallucinate when something is wrong with the environment; if we've been subjected to a toxin. OR we if we are insane.)

But that is another discussion entirely, I just had to comment this -- because it's simply not true that rational people are close minded.

We skeptics can believe ANYTHING, even things non-skeptic people believe:
We can believe that the phenonomen in the sky was a rocket/missile and that sunlight reflecting through the gas fumes creates a blue light as the crystals in the smoke bend the sunlight down on the observer.
(Just like a rainbow, the blue light can be seen by anyone no matter where they are, because it's merely reflected light).

Non-skeptics don't believe that, but don't know what they should believe instead, while we're collecting evidence to prove/disprove our hypothesis.
IF the hypothesis fails, we're once again open for another explaination.
Even if we collect evidence and replicate the event, those who are skeptical of rational explainations WILL NOT believe the explaination -- and are thus MORE close minded than us rational people.

That's all I had to say on THAT matter, but the discussion of rationality and or supernatural events IS borderline off-topic.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by ADW1983]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TallWhites

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by TallWhites
OK, but thats still very close to Finnish border.
One stray missile could easily be perceived as an attack on NATO


Where did you ever get the notion that Finland was a member of NATO?


You are right, technically they are not part of NATO.
However, they are a key NATO military ally: www.otan.nato.int...


Come on, friend...

It's not just 'technically' that Finland is not part of NATO and doesn't get NATO protection, it's 'factually' and 'legally' true it is NOT -- and your weak counterargument that because Finland is working on internet interoperability with NATO countries (the link you cited) that makes them de facto allies is not persuasive.

Suck it up. Your original statement that a missile over Finland would be treated as an attack on NATO was just wrong. Be a man and stop trying to disguise your error.

Stepping back -- people in Finland have been observing and recording Soviet/Russian missile and space launches for more than forty years. That makes them powerful allies of the truth. Now if the world of uforia had paid more attention to these reports in the past, and the famous 'UFO reports' that they actually explained, the flap over the sky spiral might have been less over the top.





[edit on 18-12-2009 by JimOberg]





new topics

top topics



 
429
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join