Norway Spiral : Case Closed

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+14 more 
posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
This thread is the 3rd and final in my attempt to analyze the available data regarding the events that transpired in the early morning of 9 December 2009, as viewed by many observers from Norway.

For those who may not have read my previous two threads, here are links to them:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In Parts 1 & 2, I attempted to use publically available photo's and video clips of the Norway Spiral event, and by locating and identifying the corresponding locations on Google Earth, was able to successfully locate and plot a trajectory flight path that the Russian Bulava missile took over the White Sea immediately upon being launched that morning.



Since completing the above initial trajectory derivation, I have subsequently located additional photo's and video's of the event and when analyzed, these have provided additional confirmation regarding the accuracy of the initial trajectory derivation method that I had used.
In particular, I'd like to thank PhotonEffect for locating and making available an extended version of the Tromso video clip which provided additional valuable data for me to use.


As well as determining the Bulava's flight path, I also derived estimates regarding the dimensions and altitude of various phases of the spiral event. One of the most significant findings was that apparently the majority of the event sighting took place at an extremely high altitude - essentially above the Earths atmosphere and for all intents and purposes, occurring in the vicinity of near space.




Many people were in agreement with the 'official explanation' that the cause of the spectacular event was primarily due to a failure in the 3rd stage of the Bulava. This explanation was further enhanced with the additional 'unofficial' amendment that the development of 2 leaks in this 3rd stage, that began to vent propellant, were the direct mechanism responsible for the formation of the spiral structure ... So the entire phenomena was this easily explained and dismissed.

However, as part of my analysis and in an attempt to confirm or deny such a simplistic explanation, I analyzed the possible major orientations that the 3rd stage could have assumed whilst under thrust, and attempted to conclude whether a stable spiral shape could indeed have been created.

As far as I'm aware, the failure of the 3rd stage was limited to a conjectured leakage of propellant from 2 locations in the 3rd stage body, located approximately 180 degrees apart. There has been no official confirmation that the 3rd stage suffered either partial or complete primary thrust failure, in which case the assumption therefore is that the 3rd stage continued to operate in a powered state.

With this in mind, my analysis showed that if the 3rd stage was thrusting and remained in a forward pointing configuration along it's trajectory, then it would have been impossible for the resulting spiral to be seen full on by the observers. In fact, the spiral could only be seen edge on in this scenario.



On the other hand, if the Bulava had become unstable and unable to fly in a nominal mode, it would very quickly begin to tumble as it flew - and again, the combination of an unstable thrust vector, a rotational stability vector directed along the axis of the missile and the resultant velocity vectors from the two leaking holes would have combined to create a situation where a stable and full on viewable spiral structure would have been impossible to generate and maintain.




Despite the above determinations that a stable and full on viewable spiral structure would be physically impossible to generate, some have stated that the reason the spiral was able to be viewed full on, was simply because the 3rd stage was actually heading AWAY from the observers and consequently, the observations were being made along the axis of the missile as it headed away, with a resultant full on viewable spiral structure being created.

Initially, this appears to make sense but a cursory examination shows the fallacy in this line of reasoning.

Examining the derived Bulava trajectory flight path in the image below, we see that the missile began its ascent after launch, with a north-easterly heading. This means that from an observers point of view, the missile would appear to be coming from their right then crossing in front of them as it continued to their left. This view can be clearly seen when the Skjervoy photos are combined resulting in a clearly defined right to left flight path.



For the rear of the Bulava to be seen and to be flying directly AWAY from the observer, the missile would have to have made a sharp and immediate course correction of 90 degrees (away from the observer) to a new heading of south-east.
But as can clearly be seen from the above image, the spiral was plainly visible full on as the missile continued along its original north-east trajectory. And as has been already demonstrated, any spiral created along the original trajectory as the direct result of a 3rd stage malfunction, could ONLY be seen edge on.

To further highlight the fact that the missile did NOT at any point during the event execute a 90 degree course correction, or for that matter ANY course correction at all, The following image is a composite overlay created from screen captures of the extended Tromso video clip. The individual screen captures were overlayed onto Google Earth and the viewpoint is as the observer saw and recorded it.



So this alternative explanation that the spiral was seen full on because the missile somehow and mysteriously made a 90 degree course correction to fly AWAY from the observers is not in the slightest a tenable one, as is readily apparent from the visual evidence presented above.


And now for a final bit of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the spiral arms were not composed of leaking propellant/exhaust. This statement is based on the calculated diameter of the spiral which at one point in its evolution extends over a distance of 200+ kms. In the following image, it can be clearly seen that even at the outermost rim of the spiral, that the individual rings have retained their structural integrity and isolation from the rings preceding and following it.
If the rings were composed of minute droplets of propellant or particles of exhaust smoke, the tendency of such particles in a low gravity/low pressure environment would be to disperse in all directions and attempt to fill the surrounding area. This means that the outermost rings would be expected to merge and overlap, resulting in blurred and indistinct rings. But as can clearly be seen, the individual rings have retained their sharpness and isolation from each other, implying that an external influence is working to maintain the ring structure and integrity.





Continued next post ...

 


Title edit by request

[edit on 19/2/10 by masqua]




posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Continued from previous post ...



Conclusion (from Parts 1 & 2)

The popular belief and officially confirmed by Russia, is that the events that took place in the early morning of 9 December 2009 were in fact actually a direct result of the firing of a Russian Bulava missile. My analysis also confirms a Bulava launch.
Based on a number of observer photos (and confirmed later by additional photos), the trajectory of the Bulava missile has been accurately determined. It was launched from a location in the White Sea and assumed a trajectory flight path that if concluded successfully, would have resulted in the Bulava accurately impacting down range within the Kamchatka Peninsula missile test area.
It has also been shown that the majority of the spiral event appears to have taken place above the Earths atmosphere.

Based on the above unassailable points, there is absolutely NO reason to believe that apart from the role played by the Bulava missile, that any other agencies such as EISCAT, HAARP, etc had any part of the event creation.

However, having shown how the conjectured propellant leaks within the 3rd stage could not conceivably produce the observed highly detailed and structured spiral structure as observed, there is at present no alternative and plausible mechanism to account for the observed effects.

So in the final analysis, the Bulava has been confirmed as having a role but it's becoming increasingly apparent that whatever the true cause of the spiral event, it most certainly was NOT the result of an accident or malfunction within the Bulava.




Having shown that the Bulava played a role in the spiral event BUT that the available evidence does NOT substantiate or corroborate in the slightest the prevailing 'official explanation' of a 3rd stage failure, this is about as far as I can go in my analysis based on publically available eye-witness documentation.

However, there is one particular aspect of the spiral itself that bears having a look at - and that's to try and get a look at whats actually happening at the very center of the spiral itself.
A cursory examination of the center structure of any of the available spiral photos would lead one to believe that there is no detail whatsoever visible, more so when one considers that the event was photographed/videoed from a distance in excess of 800 kms. Also, the central brightness also has the unfortunate effect of washing out and masking any details which might exist.

But all is not lost - and in my Part 2 thread, I had already displayed an enlarged image that clearly shows central detail.
In the remainder of this 3rd and final thread, I hope to demonstrate that there actually are 3 photos that when processed, do show substantial detail that is NOT the product of image error, pixellation, etc but seem to clearly indicate that SOMETHING unusual can be seen to be happening at the very center of the spiral, and that whatever it is, again it does NOT support or validate a simple mechanical failure of the 3rd stage.

What I'm about to show is based on the following 3 observer images:



Now looking at the above images, it's almost impossible to make out any details in the centers of the spirals due to the brightness that overwhelms everything.

However, a simple way to eliminate the whitewash effect is by looking at a negative of the image, rather than the original.
Here we have the same 3 images but in negative. You can see how the excessive brightness at the 3 respective centers is no longer an issue.




Ok, now lets take a look at the 1st of the 3 above images and enlarge it 15 times ... and this is what we see.



Unless you wish to remain in denial mode, you can't but agree that at the center of the spiral appears to be a definitive structure that is connected to the innermost ring. What the structure may be, is unfortunately unknown.

But wait, I can already hear the howls of dissent from the 'image experts' out there who are yelling that I can't just use an image of an event taken 800+ kms away, then enlarge it considerably and not expect to have significant pixellation, random image artifacts and image degradation come into play.
To which I reply ... "I totally agree with you" ... however ...

If I had instead chosen to use Photoshop or Windows Photo Viewer to do the enlargement, this is what we'd end up ... massive pixellation and significant loss of detail as in this image where I used Photoshop to enlarge x15 ... and Windows Photo Viewer is even worse.




So how did I manage to achieve such significantly higher resolution results with minimal pixellation or degradation ?
I researched and found a software package for image enlargement that is virtually in a league of it's own. This software is called SizeFixer XL and you can read about its incredible capabilities here:
www.fixerlabs.com...



The technology has its roots in government and military use, including NASA imaging. Called a “world-first for commercial use of super-resolution deconvolution technology,” ... SizeFixer is now available to the public.


And the superiority of this software is obvious when it's enlargements are compared to that of Photoshop, etc.

So essentially, if the enlargements show an artifact at the center of the spiral, then the probability of it NOT being pixellation or degradation is high indeed.

Having said the above, lets now use this software to enlarge the 2nd and 3rd images and see what we get.

Here's image2 enlarged ... once again, significant artifacts and structural details are clearly visible at the center of the spiral. The connection between the silvery/shiny artifact and the innermost ring is also clearly visible.



It should be noted that at the distance of 800+ kms that the above images were taken at, that we should NOT expect to see any sign of the 3rd stage which is only a few metres in length. So whatever the above artifacts may be, they are without doubt huge to show up in such detail.

And here's the 3rd image enlarged x15 ... no obvious artifact to be seen but the center is shown in significant detail.




So what's the overwhelming conclusion that I have drawn from the analysis and evidence presented in this 3rd thread, coupled with my previous 2 threads relating to the Norway Spiral event ?



Was a Russian Bulava missile involved ? UNDENIABLY YES
Was the spiral event due to a simple 3rd stage malfunction ? UNDENIABLY NO
Was EISCAT, HAARP or similar technology involved ? ALMOST CERTAINLY NO
Was the spiral event the result of the application of unknown technology associated with the Bulava missile ? MOST PROBABLY YES



Continued next post ...



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Continued from previous post ...


And lastly, before finally concluding this analysis and thread series, I'm now going to present my PERSONAL opinion of what I believe may have happened on 9 December, 2009.


There's no denying that I have invested a very considerable amount of time examining the many photos that were taken by observers that morning and one thing that has bothered me is that for an event of this magnitude, the images all seem to suggest a flatness or 2 dimensionality to the spiral. Sure, the huge distance between the observers and the event will enhance that 2D illusion but still it seemed odd to me.

So lets take one of the excellent Skjervoy images, use the negative and then apply 'equalization' to the image pixels. We immediately see that what was initially a flat 2D looking image, we now have the hint of depth appearing within the spiral rings.
What initially looked like a flat 2D spiral made up of reducing in diameter rings that could have been drawn on a flat piece of paper, we now have to consider that the ring diameter is not in fact getting significantly smaller, rather this is no more than an optical illusion as the rings recede into the distance from the observers point of view and giving the impression that they're getting smaller in diameter ... which they're not.

In the following image, I've tried to illustrate this "into the distance" ring recession by the curved blue arrows, indicating that space is curved and no longer flat . The straight blue lines are there to indicate normal "flat" space outside the spiral.
The blue spiral (reddish/brown in this image) is no longer to be perceived as laying flat alongside the rightmost spiral wall ... instead 'shift' your viewpoint and try to picture the blue spiral as traveling down the exact center of the spiral rings and remaining equidistant from all interior walls.
Also, I believe that if the spiral structure was to be viewed at that very moment in time from the side, that the observer most likely would not see anything out of the ordinary, and would only see the edge-on spiral structure as I've indicated in the following image.




In the following image, I've pointed out a component of the phenomenon that hasn't really been addressed much ... what I have termed the 'envelope'.
Notice that the envelope and the blue spiral have a common point of origin and whereas the spiral itself has a nearly circular structure, the envelope enclosing the spiral structure is also circular but then rapidly tapers to a point.
This common origin in time of the envelope and blue spiral immediately tells us that the envelope structure must be a separate entity from the spiral structure as it is clearly in existence prior to the time when the initial spiral shape begins to form.




So finally, how do we put all the above individual points together and try to come up with a coherent answer ?

Again, please remember that the following is MY interpretation alone ... it could be right ... it could also be wrong.


At approximately 7:45am (Norway local time), Russia launches a Bulava class missile from a submarine stationed in the White Sea.
The missile then begins to follow a north-easterly trajectory and rapidly climbs to an altitude of approximately 120 kms ... which is just above the Kármán line (100 kms) that is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space
When the missile reaches an altitude of approximately 120 kms (and is effectively now located in space and above the bulk of the atmosphere), its onboard payload package is activated and two critical events are initiated. The 1st being the deployment of what I refer to as the envelope phase and the 2nd being the deployment of the spiral phase.
The purpose of the envelope phase is to create a "boundary condition" where on the outer side of the boundary is normal space and on the inside of the boundary, conditions are manipulated to allow the successful initiation and deployment of the spiral phase. Basically the "normal" space enclosed within the envelope boundary is altered in some manner to allow its subsequent manipulation. The outcome of this manipulation results in the creation of the spiral structure. As the spiral increases in diameter, the surrounding envelope boundary also expands to accommodate the spiral structure and to prevent it from coming in contact with "normal" space on the other side of the envelope.
The purpose of the spiral is to somehow enable the space contained within the envelope boundary to be "stretched, expanded or elongated".
After approximately 3 minutes have elapsed, the "test" is terminated or the power source becomes deactivated. This results in the spiral structure becoming unstable and losing self-cohesion ... basically it collapses and very rapidly. As it collapses, the 'altered' space within the envelope boundary reverts within seconds back to a 'normal' flat and unaltered state.

The purpose of the test ? Possibly to test technology capable of manipulating the fabric of space.

Successful ? Apparently so.



Ok, that's just about it for me.

This last post has been purely a conjecture on my part and I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me ... I also do not expect anyone to take me to task on it either ... it's essentially a 'what if ...'.

But as for the earlier 2 posts within this thread, and my previous 2 threads in this series, I believe that I have successfully argued the point FOR the involvement of a Russian missile in the Norway Spiral event and also successfully argued the point AGAINST the simplistic '3rd stage failure' explanation.

For those of you who think I have failed in my attempt to disprove the 3rd stage failure scenario, by all means argue the point but please ensure that if you do decide to take such a stance, be prepared to invest as much time and effort as I have in order to back up YOUR argument ... don't simply post a response along the lines of "naaahhhh, don't agree with you tauristercus ... anyone can see it was leaking fuel".



Oh, couldn't resist adding the following


Why would Russia choose that precise moment in time to conduct such an experiment ... especially knowing that the president of the USofA was also at that time no more than a "stones throw" from the launch site ?

How about it was Russia's way of sending a message to the USofA, essentially an "in your face" gesture, informing the most powerful man in the world that Russia is still more than capable of developing and deploying extremely advanced technology of its own, and remains a force to be reckoned with !



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Brilliant posts. Thats why im here on ATS, because occasionally someone does some proper research and presents their conclusions in an adult, logical and clear way. Youve obviously put a lot of effort into this and i thank you.

kudos, S&F



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   


The purpose of the spiral is to somehow enable the space contained within the envelope boundary to be "stretched, expanded or elongated".
After approximately 3 minutes have elapsed, the "test" is terminated or the power source becomes deactivated. This results in the spiral structure becoming unstable and losing self-cohesion ... basically it collapses and very rapidly. As it collapses, the 'altered' space within the envelope boundary reverts within seconds back to a 'normal' flat and unaltered state.

The purpose of the test ? Possibly to test technology capable of manipulating the fabric of space.


I have been following your posts from start to finish, whilst I agree with some aspects I disagree with others. these spirals and just the beginning of the new change. Excellent.

Why did indeed did Russia choose this time?

[edit on 19-2-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
The Norway *what*? Ohh, right, that amazing spiral that has never ever been observed before in human history and yet no one talks about it anymore.

I'm amazed that it's been brushed off as a simple missile failure. Perhaps it was a missile, I can accept that, but WHY has a missile failure NEVER looked anything like this?



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
s+f!

great work on all 3.


there is only 1 thing i was thinking about.

how was that facing the camera.

you suggest that it would look like on edge but

what might be weirder is if that was 3D, a sphere.

only prob with that is i cannot figure out how it would develop.

i figured out that a black hole is portrayed as a black circle, 2D but it
cannot be like that in space. it would have to be a sphere.

so it would look like a circle from any angle. therefore...

any chance that could apply?



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Where can I find pictures taken side-on of the event? All I can find are the photos taken front-on.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 



that's why i wondered.

i haven't seen any either but that doesn't mean there aren't.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
s+f!

great work on all 3.


there is only 1 thing i was thinking about.

how was that facing the camera.

you suggest that it would look like on edge but

what might be weirder is if that was 3D, a sphere.

only prob with that is i cannot figure out how it would develop.

i figured out that a black hole is portrayed as a black circle, 2D but it
cannot be like that in space. it would have to be a sphere.

so it would look like a circle from any angle. therefore...

any chance that could apply?


Very good question indeed !

In fact, back in thread 1 of this series, I actually did consider a sphere explanation ... here's what I had to say about it:



Finally, one observation that I believe has not been made by or commented on by anyone so far.
If we take a look at the Skjervoy image (Image3) that shows the initial stage of spiral dissipation, we see what at 1st glance appears to be an expanding circular region of darkness. It has been suggested by others that this is nothing more than the background dark sky beginning to show through again as the spiral material begins to fade away or dissipate towards the end of the event.

However, closer inspection appears to suggest that the dark void is not simply a 2 dimensional disk shape but may in fact be a 3 dimensional dark "globe" structure. The primary indication of its 3d structure is evidenced by the blue funnel shaped structure not completely covering the dark void from edge to edge, but instead apparently having a well defined boundary that stops far short of reaching the edge of the void.
You could liken it to an example where you have a flexible tube with a wide opening into which you're trying to force a much bigger spherical shaped object ... think of trying to force a bowling ball into a flexible tube that can stretch only so far ... the bowling ball will get stuck only part way into the tube opening after it has been stretched to its maximum. The important part of this analogy is that every part of the tube opening is in contact with the surface of the larger globe ... exactly as seen in that Skjervoy image.

I've taken that image and to show more clearly what I'm talking about, have reversed the colours and increased saturation levels. As can be readily seen, the funnel rim appears to be in complete contact with the globes surface but without touching the edges of the void.






posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Very detailed analysis. Nice work!

Originally posted by tauristercus
In particular, I'd like to thank PhotonEffect for locating and making available an extended version of the Tromso video clip which provided additional valuable data for me to use.

Has that extended clip also been made available to the rest of us, or just to you?


Originally posted by tauristercus
Unless you wish to remain in denial mode, you can't but agree that at the center of the spiral appears to be a definitive structure that is connected to the innermost ring. What the structure may be, is unfortunately unknown.


Regarding the "ring structure" being unknown, I assumed that it was merely rocket exhaust, is there any reason to doubt this? And the spiral structure linked to it I thought was leaking rocket exhaust.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
Where can I find pictures taken side-on of the event? All I can find are the photos taken front-on.


Unfortunately, as far as my extensive research has shown, there simply are NO side shots of the spiral event at all ... which to me seems extremely strange. We are after all talking about an incredible event that took place above the atmosphere and towards the end was 100's of kms in diameter ... strange indeed


Every observer has seen (photoed or videoed) the event from either a full on viewpoint (Skjervoy) or else slightly of full on (Tromso, Poultsa) ... but no one apparently has seen it from the edge OR from the reverse full on side.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 



which to me means,

1-the event was staged and the camera was a set up

or

2-your edge on is correct (lower profile)



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Very detailed analysis. Nice work!

Has that extended clip also been made available to the rest of us, or just to you?

The extended clip is available here:
www.youtube.com...




Regarding the "ring structure" being unknown, I assumed that it was merely rocket exhaust, is there any reason to doubt this? And the spiral structure linked to it I thought was leaking rocket exhaust.


I classified it as 'unknown' because
(a) at a distance of 800+ kms, there is no way that we'd be able to image the 3rd stage of the Bulava which I believe is only 2m in diameter and approx. 3 or 4m in length.
But for the artifact/structure to be so easily visible in those enlargements, immediately indicates that whatever it is, it's VERY big !

and (b)
I'd provided a very detailed analysis as to why the 'exhaust smoke/leaking propellant' claim didn't hold up to scrutiny. So whatever mechanism created the spiral structure, it certainly wasn't anything leaking from the Bulava's 3rd stage ... and I'd just about dealt with the 'official explanation' of damaged/malfunctioning 3rd stage ... it simply wasn't !!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
Where can I find pictures taken side-on of the event? All I can find are the photos taken front-on.


Well assuming that it was a Bulava rocket and that it was over 100 KM in space then that means it was a HUGE MASSIVE spiral.

And that also means that people inside of Russia should have these "Side on photographs" being it would have lit the northern skies up like fireworks.

Where are the photos from Murmansk? Arkhangelsk?

The photos from Nar'yan-Mar? Dikson or Igarka?

Basically what I am saying is this. There are TONS of cities along Northern Russia, so why isn't there ONE PHOTO from these places of the event "from the side" or "directly over the cities"???

Where are the photos from Finland and Sweden?

AND all we got is a bunch of photos from Norway???!!!


The Norway Spiral event is still an anomaly to me. I would buy the "massive spiral from Bulava launch" theory if there were photos from places like Murmansk etc etc etc.

Look maybe the photos exist, but I have NEVER seen them. Please link them if anyone knows where they are.

Being this is just a rocket and all, where are the supporting photos that indicate such???

Call me skeptical. I am just asking questions here.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
No, I do not think it was uber massively mega ultra huge spiral like all of the Russian Rocket explanation people suggest.

Due to the absence of photographs of this "UBER MASSIVE" event from anywhere outside of Norway:

I am forced to conclude that the event took place in Norway at a LOW altitude, no higher than 20-25km.

I am also forced to conclude it was a NATO test, rather than Russian.

Of a rocket? Maybe. I don't pretend to know what the hell it was.

I am just using logic to see if the explanations presented add up. And from my point of view they do not add up at all.

I still have not seen a good explanation to this. Other than my own lol, which is a NATO test of something (unknown testbed technology, possibly a rocket of unknown specs).

[edit on 19-2-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

But for the artifact/structure to be so easily visible in those enlargements, immediately indicates that whatever it is, it's VERY big !


Or.....

That it is way closer than you think!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

I classified it as 'unknown' because
(a) at a distance of 800+ kms, there is no way that we'd be able to image the 3rd stage of the Bulava which I believe is only 2m in diameter and approx. 3 or 4m in length.
But for the artifact/structure to be so easily visible in those enlargements, immediately indicates that whatever it is, it's VERY big !


Sorry but you're wrong. If that were true then we wouldn't be able to see the 2.5mm wide tether that NASA filmed in the STS-75 mission at a distance of about 150km:



If the rocket diameter is 2 meters, that's 2000mm or not quite 1000 times larger. Plus add to that fact the rocket exhuast is self illuminating, making it even brighter, the tether was only reflecting light. Also note the shape of the tether is about 18,000m long by 0.0025 m wide and the video doesn't show that size or shape so you can't infer that a video will show the correct size or shape of an object at night.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
also,

8 out of 10 failed tests, or whatever, the russians should have some great video!

how come none from them?

someone else had to see this from other places, out from the center.

back engineer the visuals, lol, does that make any sense?

i can't believe it was visually localized, if it was i don't know what to make of that.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks

i can't believe it was visually localized, if it was i don't know what to make of that.


My make of it, is that it was localized.
*like no more than 40km distant, 20-25km altitude*

Rather than extremely distant.
*800+ km distance, 100+ km altitude*

Call me shallow or simple minded. I don't care.





new topics
top topics
 
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join