Mysterious light with spiral tail seen in Aussie sky

page: 28
116
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by docjohnson9

Originally posted by jennybee35
O.K., now I guess I'm gonna' go and say something completely nuts. What if there is not an actual "object" in the spiral. What if the spirals are gateways? They move horizontally because they are not really in our sky, they only appear to move because the earth is rotating past them as they open. Maybe our eyes just don't understand what we are seeing come out of them?

Okay, I've never posted such a weird reply, but I actually feel that's right.

[edit on 6/5/10 by jennybee35]



That's very interesting Jennybee and i like what your thinking!!!


Think a little harder. If the apparent motion is caused by Earth's rotation, and the observer-perceived motion of the cloud is west-to-east, this implies that earth rotates in the opposite direction, from east to west. Is that what your thinking requires?



[edit on 7-6-2010 by JimOberg]




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Jim, if I may pick your brain:


Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thanks for stopping by Jim.

I'm wondering if not all is going well with the Falcon, particularly with the unexpected roll and that it may have been (or still is) going on too long.

Thoughts?


Off topic -- but I agree the spin was unplanned and worrisome (as was the roll on the second SpaceShipOne record flight). It never got to the point of structural threat but spins are bad for navigation instruments.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by C-Reilly
 

The lack of stars is for the same reason you cannot see the foreground when you are looking at something back-lit,like a tree in the sun at sunset,because of the light in the background,you cannot see the foreground,and the tree is silhouetted,appearing very dark,or black.

The object is probably in front of the stars at high altitude and being illuminated by the sun over the horizon,the stars are there,they are just subdued by the lighting conditions.The camera is probably focusing on something closer than the stars too,so they are maybe just too fuzzy and out of focus to see clearly....



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
probably a spinning piece of space junk,like a spent fuel tank from a rocket,heating up from the sun with a volatile liquid evaporating from inside of it,escaping through a hole or an open valve,with the mist or fog from it being illuminated by the sun which has not crested the horizon yet,making it appear brighter than anything else in the sky...........



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Here you go:







I also posted a video of the role a couple of pages back too.




Errr have you looked at how far into the flight those images are from. Seems to me to be 8 minutes, so exactly how does that correlate with it being over Australia?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Err if you had read what I've been saying you wouldn't me asking me this.

I believe the reported unexpected role may have continued on much longer than they have let on.

Hence why it was seen spiraling over Australia



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Err if you had read what I've been saying you wouldn't me asking me this.

I believe the reported unexpected role may have continued on much longer than they have let on.

Hence why it was seen spiraling over Australia


In other words, you are making a huge assumption based on hearsay and backing it up by showing something from totally different time frame. Well that;'s first on here.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

If they happen to coincide then Falcon 9 is the most probable explanation.

[edit on 5/6/2010 by C0bzz]


Please, will everyone stop and think for a minute. The Falcon 9 launched from the cape, 15 mile away from where I live, yes I saw it launch, and it does not matter when it launched because it went UP OVER THE ATLANTIC coast. I live on the barrier islands. Are you guys saying that after it went up, one of the stages fell back to Earth well over half a rotation away? I have seen almost every public-known launch from the KSC and from Merritt Island, I always stay and watch the rocket boosters fall back into the Atlantic. I would say, it takes about 5 minutes for a rocket to complete all stages from lift-off to stable orbit, and I don't think it would have had time to cross over Africa, let alone Australia, in that time. Soo, the final stage of the Falcon 9 was released just prior to reaching it's orbital flight path, and then that stage fell slowly to Earth. The stage is not burning fuel anymore, but it comes back at the same velocity as the spent/unspent fuel cloud around it, and be seen in Austrailia (the East coast). Almost plausible. But, from past experience and my own opinion, even the final stage released from a self propelled rocket in orbit,, the fall path is more acute to reach all the way around the world like that. Only the Apollo manned re-entry pods have come down in the Pacific, and all the previous rocket stages that have been recycled/reused/salvaged have been pulled from the Atlantic. Am I wrong? I'll keep an eye on this thread, to see what the overall concensus is.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
We may have a sock puppet post by Clark McClelland,
www.stargate-chronicles.com...



Originally posted by Tempest333

Please, will everyone stop and think for a minute. The Falcon 9 launched from the cape, 15 mile away from where I live, yes I saw it launch, and it does not matter when it launched because it went UP OVER THE ATLANTIC coast. I live on the barrier islands. Are you guys saying that after it went up, one of the stages fell back to Earth well over half a rotation away?


Nope, nobody's saying that. Read the posts again.



I have seen almost every public-known launch from the KSC and from Merritt Island, I always stay and watch the rocket boosters fall back into the Atlantic. I would say, it takes about 5 minutes for a rocket to complete all stages from lift-off to stable orbit, ...


Good eyesight. The boosters are falling back several hundred miles offshore. What kind of optical aids are you using?

It doesn't matter what "you would say", it matters what the record shows -- it takes between seven and ten minutes to achieve a low Earth orbit.


... and I don't think it would have had time to cross over Africa, let alone Australia, in that time. Soo, the final stage of the Falcon 9 was released just prior to reaching it's orbital flight path, and then that stage fell slowly to Earth.


Did you see it fall to Earth? By all published accounts consistent with rocket science, the second stage achieved a stable low Earth orbit and kept moving eastwards. What evidence can you offer to contradict this?


The stage is not burning fuel anymore, but it comes back at the same velocity as the spent/unspent fuel cloud around it, and be seen in Austrailia (the East coast). Almost plausible. But, from past experience and my own opinion, even the final stage released from a self propelled rocket in orbit,, the fall path is more acute to reach all the way around the world like that.


Some spacecraft have onboard propulsion to pull them off the upper stages, but in almost all cases in history, the upper stage ALSO goes into a low orbit that is stable for days, weeks, even months. Can you list a few examples from your experience that this wasn't so?


Only the Apollo manned re-entry pods have come down in the Pacific, and all the previous rocket stages that have been recycled/reused/salvaged have been pulled from the Atlantic.


Some Mercury and Gemini spacecraft (not "pods") came down in the Pacific, too, after making many orbits of Earth. But also, as with Apollo, after firing their braking engines.


Am I wrong? I'll keep an eye on this thread, to see what the overall concensus is.


Your misuse of basic terms and your imaginary 'memory' suggest to me you are falsely posing as a space worker to provide "evidence" to discredit a reasonable prosaic explanation that you don't want to believe. Am I wrong?

[edit on 7-6-2010 by JimOberg]

[edit on 7-6-2010 by JimOberg]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Err if you had read what I've been saying you wouldn't me asking me this.

I believe the reported unexpected role may have continued on much longer than they have let on.

Hence why it was seen spiraling over Australia

Indeed it would have continued rolling until something acted to stop it. As this roll was unanticipated there was almost certainly nothing programed into the rocket's guidance to stop the roll, especially after engine cutoff.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
So if all these spirals are just missiles and missile tests ejecting fuel over the atmosphere, then where are the clips of old stock footage showing the same spiral in past events pre 2000?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 
Here's an account and a video.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You understand that not as many people had video cams/cell phones in hand before 2000, right?


[edit on 6/7/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

You understand that not as many people had video cams/cell phones in hand before 2000, right?



I buy the cell phone argument. You still have to sell me on the video cam argument. I'm of the opinion that there were plenty of cams out there. We even have footage of JFK's skull being dismantled. Who knew.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Obviously I'm a supporter of the Falcon theory, but has anyone yet explained why all the reports and videos show a clockwise spiral when (apparently) it should have been seen to spiral retrograde.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 

People knew Kennedy was going to be driving through town. Yet, there is only one movie of the actual event.

No one in Australia knew the rocket was going to be flying overhead. No one in Norway knew there was going to be a Russian missile test. Yet, there are videos and still photos. There are a lot more recording devices walking around now.

The spirals are not new. Thousands of cameras in thousands of pockets and the internet are new.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 

There's no particular reason that the rocket would maintain a particular attitude. The venting could easily cause it to swap ends as well as roll. The space shuttles often fly "backwards".

[edit on 6/7/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 

There's no particular reason that the rocket would maintain a particular attitude. The venting could easily cause it to swap ends as well as roll.

Yes, good answer. It could have flipped over.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Obviously I'm a supporter of the Falcon theory, but has anyone yet explained why all the reports and videos show a clockwise spiral when (apparently) it should have been seen to spiral retrograde.

The orientation of the spiral will depend on whether the spiral is "facing" you or "facing away" from you; that will depend on spacecraft orientation which in turn is subject to whatever orientation the earth's gravity gradient pulls it into.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

People knew Kennedy was going to be driving through town. Yet, there is only one movie of the actual event.


That is incorrect. There are several movie clips of JFK driving toward, thru, and away from D. Plaza.


No one in Australia knew the rocket was going to be flying overhead. No one in Norway knew there was going to be a Russian missile test. Yet, there are videos and still photos. There are a lot more recording devices walking around now.


I agree. But a Russian missile failing over another countries airspace would be an international incident would it not?



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 

There are movies of the parade. There are movies of satellites and rocket launches too.
I'm talking about The Event in Dallas.

The Russian missile was in Russian airspace. What does that have to do with the Falcon 9? It was in orbit when it passed over Australia. I suppose that could technically be considered Australian "airspace" but the Falcon sure isn't the only thing up there. There was no danger posed by it. Objects in orbit do not unexpectedly plummet to Earth.



[edit on 6/7/2010 by Phage]





new topics
top topics
 
116
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join