Spectacular Phenomena In The Sky. What Is It?

page: 124
429
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
@ JimOberg

You are right. I was thinking of Norway at the time who are indeed a NATO country. However, even though they claim neutrality, Finland is stronger linked to the West than they are to Russia. They never were part of the "Iron Curtain", and when push comes to shove I believe they would side with the West. And since they regularly join NATO exercises, we can safely call Finland a NATO ally:

www.formin.fi...

www.finlandnato.org...

www.finlandnato.org...

www.finlandnato.org...


www.finlandnato.org...

www.finlandnato.org...




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
All im gonna say is it may be a missile, but it could be something else. If it was some alien porthole or anything else out of this world you wouldn't know it if it hit you in the face, because you have no frickin clue what you are supposed to see. See what im getting at here? ill explain further if i need to.

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
All im gonna say is it may be a missile, but it could be something else. If it was some alien porthole or anything else out of this world you wouldn't know it if it hit you in the face, because you have no frickin clue what you are supposed to see. See what im getting at here? ill explain further if i need to.

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]


I agree. This may be a missile, but it could be something else. If the UFO occupants are attempting to make contact, albeit very slowly over the years so as not to freak us out too much, then why wouldn't they make a spectacular show of an errant missile launch? Just like the crop circles, yes they could be made by some anonymous students of geometry, but they could be something else.

I doubt if anyone's ever going to prove this being as "just" a missile gone bad and nothing else. At least not until disclosure really comes about. And by then this event won't really matter. We could be in for a lot more amazing things in the sky.

I also believe, like the UFO mystery, that we will eventually find out the real truth behind crop circles. Maybe they will turn out to be all man made, and maybe all the unexplained UFO sightings will turn out to be the results of some military secret or project blue beam. But then again, maybe not.

It's probably no coincidence that the modern influx of UFO activity occurred just after we discovered the atomic bomb. I would think that if these the UFO occupants have been with us throughout history then now would be a really good time to return. Perhaps atomic weapons in space poses more of risk to them than we could ever imagine. Perhaps this is the reason they have returned to the fore and are attempting to make contact.




[edit on 19-12-2009 by Neo__]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I keep checking in to see if any answers have came out....guess not.

I have no desire to debate what I am about to say!
This is nothing more than an observation, has anyone ever set off bottle rockets without the stick?
Do it 10 times and see if you see anything similar.

I have no idea what atmosphere,, and a lack of, would have as an affect on this, but I just wanted to state my observations.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Perhaps it's a weather modification device that was being showcased during the new green religion of climatologist of climatology of Copenhagen aka COP15. The blue Spiral was a awesome new weather mod being used & now the effects are being felt in the US?

I mean if Copenhagen is all about the climate. Why stop at just talking. Why not actually just use technology to control the weather to clean it up & WAR IT UP! "Weather modification" It is a real ability these days.

Some of Russia's Neighbors are just going to be upset has anyone forgot about this? "Russia reigns over its weather" Funny how science is advancing governments, & they allow the propaganda spin! It only boost their ability to scare to ever loving heck out of you! Russia made a statement less talk more action...

Note:Weather modification in warfare has been banned by the United Nations. But since when has that stopped a nation like russia or another G8 nation?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I posted this on another forum but would like to share it here as well:

As we all know from the UFO phenomenon, jumping to a wrong conclusion about range to an apparition can lead to subsequent missteps in estimating size, motion, and illumination conditions.

The standard launch profile for SLBMs out of the White Sea is eastwards towards the Kamchatka impact zone. Rare occasions have seen launches towards Novaya Zemlya but that would have provided a fast moving profile of the staging sequences, inconsistent with the Tromso reports.

Previous SLBM tests have been seen at other points along the standard trajectory, such as Arkhangelsk and Murmansk. This time, those sites were clouded over and too close to sunrise for seeing any celestial apparition behind a too-bright pre-sunrise sky.

Airborne witnesses have also seen and described phenomena of the SLBM-launch genre, the most famous being the September 1984 ("exactly 4:10 AM") classic Soviet-era UFO. I would expect planes in the air over NW Russia and Scandinavia predawn on December 9 ought to have gotten views of the apparition, potentially from better angles farther south -- unless a too-bright sky washed out the visibility even when above the widespread cloud cover.

Most intriguing to me is the frequency with which these earlier witnesses (1980s and 1990s) also saw and sketched SPIRAL shapes [no camcorder records of such previous spirals exist, to my knowledge, which is not surprising considering the level of video tools available to the general public in those decades). These spirals, described as rapidly expanding radially from a central point, were seen during observations of different types of rockets, including some missions which successfully placed payloads into orbit. This is suggestive, in my view, of a hypothesis that the spiral, then and now, is not a 'bug' (a consequence of a failure) but a 'feature' (result of a deliberate action on the upper stage).

The geometry of the line of sight from Tromso can be approximated using ICBM ascent profiles, perhaps with tweaking for the Bulava which advertises a much higher-G climb out and a 'depressed' trajectory -- two features deliberately engineered into the vehicle to make it more resistant to US boost-phase ABM weapons.

Such a trajectory is consistent with the Tromso videos showing a very low white cloud zig-zag (a classic ICBM smoke trail distorted by wind shears, backlit by the pre-dawn sun) followed by a hazy expanding arching line showing the track of rocket nozzle ejecta impacting the thin lower ionosphere (I've seen such chemoluminescent glow during full-dark rocket launchings from both Florida and California), a haze that would easily hang for several minutes before dispersing and also being overcome by growing dawn glare.

The spiral is a magnificent phenomenon for which jump-to explanations -- and the requisite evidence-shaping and selecting that ANY too-premature conclusion forces on a researcher -- need to be avoided. I note that the spin rate of the ejector object, as close as I could measure it, appears to be constant [please make independent verifications of this], and the motion of any released quantum of spiral-marker also appears to be purely radial outwards from the dispenser, at an angular rate that seemed constant within measurement uncertainty.

That angular rate should be expected to vary, assuming the absolute dispersal velocity remained constant. For any significant change in absolute range over the period of spiral formation, that might be expected to create a change in angular velocity, which if measurable would provide an indication of actual range and sense of motion. But my own attempted measurements were not fine enough to differentiate different potential geometrical/motion models. I invite serious investigators to try harder and report back.

The material comprising the spiral trail came from two separate points on the dispersal object, hence the double trail. And both dispersals are observed to terminate simultaneously and instantly. They do not tail off, or sputter, which I interpret as an indication that the dispersal, and its termination, was deliberately engineered for reasons not yet clear.

Considering the very high departure velocity of the ICBM at this stage and its still being on an ascent path, the spiral seeming to hang 'motionless' in the sky is an entirely reasonable consequence of its actual ballistic motion and the geometry of the observer's location.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
There's a long and technical discussion of possible causes of the sky spiral at these links, which I highly recommend to serious enthusiasts. Weird-theory buffs probably should just avoid them:



Bulavas Whirling Though the Sky
www.armscontrolwonk.com...

We’ve had quite a discussion in the comments over Russia’s recent failed Bulava SLBM [www.armscontrolwonk.com...] test and the pretty spiral it made before crashing into the ocean.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
How about this simulation for a possible explanation? although it didn't convince me, but it opened up few possibilities for me to think about.


 

Mod edit: YouTube link corrected.

[edit on 24/12/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Weird-theory buffs probably should just avoid them

You mean "weird-theory buffs" that might believe in the existance of UFO's, Jim?? I cant quite figure out why you are here, this is a site for people that wanna swap their theories on UFO's and ET, you do know that dont you??!!



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TallWhites

Originally posted by JimOberg
Weird-theory buffs probably should just avoid them

You mean "weird-theory buffs" that might believe in the existance of UFO's, Jim?? I cant quite figure out why you are here, this is a site for people that wanna swap their theories on UFO's and ET, you do know that dont you??!!


And as the Norway spiral dramatically demonstrates, technical information relevant to military intelligence analysis of Soviet/Russian missile and space activities frequently masquerades as 'UFO reports' but deserves attention because they are NOT 'real UFOs'. For Russia, this has been going on for decades, literally -- and the CIA/DIA/academia complex sure OUGHT to have been studying the Moscow UFO literature, precisely because the 'UFOs' WERE real spacecraft -- just misperceived top secret Soviet ones.

Ignoring the reports or mockingly dismissing them is to put out an important eye into secret sky activities. Even the CIA isn't THAT dumb.

Ditto space 'UFO videos' -- NASA has ALWAYS treated stuff seen outside windows as potentially valuable clues to a wide variety of spacecraft malfunctions, and quite properly inspects all such images it can get, and widely publicizes such potentuial clues in order to get everybody interested, into the analysis game. Covering UP such a potentially life-threatening clue would be suicidal, or murder -- look at the Columbia catastrophe and the potential visual clue of the broken thermal panel drifting AWAY the day after launch, but nobody on the spaceship (or watching the exterior cameras) seems to have seen or reported it, losing the chance to realize the existence of the lethal wound in time to repair it, engineer a rescue, or at least go down fighting after good-byes to loved ones.

So to the question -- do I believe that some UFO reports are caused by anomalous phenomena deserving of closer study -- you betcha. Most folks here just don't like the way that serious, competent investigation of the space videos leads. They WANT another answer, not the one provided by evidence. That's not just useless, it's harmful in overlooking potentially lifesaving clues -- or even bigger stories.





[edit on 23-12-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
do I believe that some UFO reports are caused by anomalous phenomena deserving of closer study -- you betcha

I dont disagree with you there, but thats cherry picking.
Saying some UFO reports are caused by anomalous phenomena is like saying all muslims are terrorists, because SOME of them ARE terrorists.

This might be too deep for you Jimbo, but liken the UFO debate to a murder court case. If I was charged with murder, and a judge allowed the eyewitness testimonies of all UFO witnesses of 2009, I would get convicted on the spot, with no other corroborating evidence. No dead body, no smoking gun....nothing!!



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

cant belive the amount of people saying its a rockit, i thought we had clever people on here, sinse when does exust or vapour produce such clean lines and so fast? you show me a rockit doing that exact detailed pattern, and sinse when do rockits travel though light blue tubes of light and make black holes when thay pass the end of the light tube there traveling in?

wot are we all testing 60s technology and being hush hush about it? china, norway, russia & others? im pretty sure we would have been told just like north korea or iran told us, theres no big secret in a rocket or missle launch anymore, this has puzzled top scientists but lets just forget about it and pass a cat of as a dog... come on look at the pictures and watch the videos PROPPERLY this time and think about the elements and patterns at work.

and check the infrared picture... ITS CLEARLY NOT a god dam rocket/missle

thay are just a few reasons why it is 110% not a rocket, i feel like crying sometimes i really do.


we have either made a huge leap in tech or its ET, thats the way im leaning at the minite more research is needed in both tho, the russian st petersberg one seemed like some sort of wormhole and a ufo exiting the wormhole, this one Nothing appears out of the portal? cloaked maybe who knows, the china one, diffrent to both with its revolving then reversing spiral... alltho the china one does seems weaker and not as intence in contrast & sharpness?

theres clearly evidence in the norwegian spiral of space & time bending as it punched through into are space and time, with perfect waves "NOT WEAK KAOTIC SKIGGLES IN ANY OTHER FAILED ROCKIT" there are ripples of light bending and wavey rings with peaks and troffs OF LIGHT just like a water drop dropping on water, even the light tube behind the spiral is distorted as if its under the water, the blue tube of "location to destination" "space time and time space" witch in the russian one you can clearly see the white dot/ufo traveling through, when it exits, wormhole/portal closes and colapses into a black hole..

as far as i know we humans can not bend light like that or creat wormholes & portals

and i must stress again for the 2+2 = 6 people on here, it really is not a missle or rockit malfunction



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TallWhites

Originally posted by JimOberg
do I believe that some UFO reports are caused by anomalous phenomena deserving of closer study -- you betcha

I dont disagree with you there, but thats cherry picking.
Saying some UFO reports are caused by anomalous phenomena is like saying all muslims are terrorists, because SOME of them ARE terrorists.

This might be too deep for you Jimbo, but liken the UFO debate to a murder court case. If I was charged with murder, and a judge allowed the eyewitness testimonies of all UFO witnesses of 2009, I would get convicted on the spot, with no other corroborating evidence. No dead body, no smoking gun....nothing!!


RW, you really would benefit from -- and your arguments would become more compelling after -- a study of classic syllogistic logic. Your analogies described here are all pretty lame. Your grasp of reality would improve across the board if your reasoning became more disciplined. Please read up on the subject, then apply it to this and other puzzles.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME THE AWNSER TO THESE QUESTIONS....


1 If it was indeed a rockit/missile - wheres the debrise, that looks no more than 20.000 feet maybe much much lower?

2 there was no explosion so im sure we would find something after all even at 30.000ft we would surely find something no?

3. that could have easy maimed civys and would warrent a public appolagy to the norwegian government? when has a missle malfuction ever hit another country, maybe there has but im not awares of any, especial a nation as advanced as russia???

4 how can a stray missle/rockit - come from that "angle" if indeed from the white sea. and then after failing on a 3rd stage AT that altitude turn on a penny/dime and start a vertical spiraling without falling apart the G force of that would have ripped it to bits = debrise

i'll stop here at Q4 please explain debunkers?


wake up

[edit on 26-12-2009 by BRITWARRIOR]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
In this thread;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

an article was posted with info disproving the missile theory, starting halfway page one.:

divinecosmos.com...

Please read, and tell me what you think.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
"and check the infrared picture... ITS CLEARLY NOT a god dam rocket/missle"..

We'd all appreciate a link to the alleged IR picture, with checkable proof it actually is an infra-red image. PS -- We're not 'spelling nazis' but when you try to debunk a theory based primarily on your own inability to understand it, it helps if you spell 'missile' correctly.





Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME THE AWNSER TO THESE QUESTIONS....


1 If it was indeed a rockit/missile - wheres the debrise, that looks no more than 20.000 feet maybe much much lower?


This has been extensively discussed on this thread. Go back and review it.



2 there was no explosion so im sure we would find something after all even at 30.000ft we would surely find something no?


No. The missile was more than a hundred miles in space, many hundreds of miles to the east of Norway, over the Arctic Ocean, as has been discussed extensively here. You get no mercy for claiming something is 'not explained' when you purposely refuse to read the actual discussion pages.


3. that could have easy maimed civys and would warrent a public appolagy to the norwegian government? when has a missle malfuction ever hit another country, maybe there has but im not awares of any, especial a nation as advanced as russia???


How many civilians do you know living on Arctic ice floes?



4 how can a stray missle/rockit - come from that "angle" if indeed from the white sea. and then after failing on a 3rd stage AT that altitude turn on a penny/dime and start a vertical spiraling without falling apart the G force of that would have ripped it to bits = debrise

i'll stop here at Q4 please explain debunkers?


wake up


"Wake up" is good advice, but ironic, coming from a sleepwalker.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Please read up on the subject, then apply it to this and other puzzles

This is rich, Jim now claims to know how much I've read up on the UFO subject

I didnt know you were with me every waking moment I spent researching the subject, Jimbo



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TallWhites

Originally posted by JimOberg
Please read up on the subject, then apply it to this and other puzzles

This is rich, Jim now claims to know how much I've read up on the UFO subject

I didnt know you were with me every waking moment I spent researching the subject, Jimbo


I was refering to the subject of syllogistic logic, which your post clearly showed you were inadequately familiar with. Perhaps I should also recommend remedial work in reading for comprehension.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I promise you I will read up on syllogistic logic, Jimbo.

Happy (UFO debunking) New Year to you



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
No. The missile was more than a hundred miles in space, many hundreds of miles to the east of Norway, over the Arctic Ocean, as has been discussed extensively here. You get no mercy for claiming something is 'not explained' when you purposely refuse to read the actual discussion pages.

reply to post by JimOberg
 


more than a 100 miles in space? and it failed on stage 3 booster, LMAO

do you know how i know its not jim.. i know because it looks nothing like a rocket or missile and it really is a easy as that,

im sure there has been loads of rockits and missiles launched and failed please go find something that looks the same, not simular, the same please








[edit on 27-12-2009 by BRITWARRIOR]





new topics
top topics
 
429
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join