Mysterious light with spiral tail seen in Aussie sky

Originally posted by NightVision

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.

The bigger question is, since such photos, drawings, etc do exist -- why the UFO websites you frequent did not in the past ever show such videos to you, allowing you to innocently but erroneously conclude that there WERE no such videos. You gotta ask yourself, what other exculpatory prosaic-explanatory evidence are they withholding from you, to play with your mind? Or to be blunter -- to deceive you?

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.

I don't understand your claim that it SHOULD have spiraled 'retrograde' (viewed from which direction?). In the model that explains the apparitions satisfactorily to me, the rotation plane is arbitrary and can even change over time.

Originally posted by NightVision
...But a Russian missile failing over another countries airspace would be an international incident would it not?

Indeed it could be. But your description is not what actually happened last December. The missile was over Russian and then international airspace, never over another country's borders.

Once an object is in orbit, by convention since October 4, 1957, 'airspace' loses its legal meaning. There is no proscription of such overflights. Never has been.

Originally posted by JimOberg



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

You are absolutely right. I posted without reading on.

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.

I see them with my own eyes, better at night. What I really see is the hot end of the boosters. And I stand corrected, wasn't thinking it through when I stated how long it should take.

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?

None.

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?

Things I would have kept in mind if I had read all the posts first.

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?

Please excuse my memory. I was not as blessed with it as most, and am getting old. And my intention was not to discredit this explanation, but to add my questions to the list, and I have found answers for some. I am not posing as anything other than a resident of the East coast of Central Florida. Been here half of my life, is all.

Temp

Temp, I envy you the things you have seen in the sky, and I applaud your commitment of time to explain and elaborate. You are definitely part of the solution to these puzzles, not part of the problem. And I'm sorry to bring up Clark McClelland's name -- it was incorrect and inappropriate.

1. The biggest, and most striking incongruence with the rocket story is the simple fact that the falcon 9 was unpowered as it flew over Australia.

2. The alleged missile over Norway was in a powered stage. How is it possible that two nearly identical phenomenon could be blamed on completely different missiles, in completely different stages of flight?

3. I think the official story on the falcon 9 missile is that a correction burn to stop the spin turned it in the opposite direction and was seen for hundreds of miles away. How could small correction thrusters create such a massive light in the sky? They must use these thrusters on a regular basis, and this type of event is very rare.

4. what is the point of venting extra fuel? it seems in the touchy arena of space flight exerting any uncontrolled thrust would be avoided.

5. why hasn't SpaceX, or NASA taken official responsibility tor this event?

6. There was a camera on the falcon 9 missile body so it makes sense that they would record any fuel dump, or spin correction (both of which are pure speculation at this point)

Give me a break people, my gut tells me this was a carefully planed event perpetrated by humans in compartmentalized programs that are fed up with the business as usual.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Project_Exo]

Originally posted by Project_Exo
1. The biggest, and most striking incongruence with the rocket story is the simple fact that the falcon 9 was unpowered as it flew over Australia.

The second stage was reignited at some point during the first orbit for a "test burp," after which the remaining fuel was probably dumped. Either or both of those events would explain its appearance. Fuel dumps are frequently performed well after the launch, such as this dump from a non-spinning rocket seen from Iran:
spaceweather.com...
Here's another wild looking fuel dump, seen from Africa:
www.africanphotographyblog.com...

2. The alleged missile over Norway was in a powered stage. How is it possible that two nearly identical phenomenon could be blamed on completely different missiles, in completely different stages of flight?

It's a mighty big stretch to call them nearly identical; one was moving relatively slowly through the sky such that most people still think it wasn't moving while this latest one was obviously moving at satellite speed, one showed the trail all the way back to the smoke of the earlier stages of the rocket, this one latest one did not, one produced a relatively large spiral from what was obviously a great deal of the third stage's fuel, this one latest one produced a relatively small cloud more akin to a short burn or dump of remaining fuel.

3. I think the official story on the falcon 9 missile is that a correction burn to stop the spin turned it in the opposite direction and was seen for hundreds of miles away.

Where was that stated? I haven't seen that as the "official story" anywhere.

4. what is the point of venting extra fuel? it seems in the touchy arena of space flight exerting any uncontrolled thrust would be avoided.

As shown above, venting extra fuel is standard operating proceedure. The point is to be sure that the cryogenic fuel doesn't boil and cause an over-pressure explosion of the upper stage of the rocket, which would be a terrible debris generation event. Normally it's done after the separation of any functional payload so as not to disturb its orbit.

5. why hasn't SpaceX, or NASA taken official responsibility tor this event?

Why should anyone, let alone a government agency that had nothing to do with it, "take responsibility" for a non-event? It's not like the rocket posed a danger to anyone. You make it sound like a disaster happened.

6. There was a camera on the falcon 9 missile body so it makes sense that they would record any fuel dump, or spin correction (both of which are pure speculation at this point)

That would require them getting enough radio bandwidth to the stage for a video downlink halfway around the world at a time in the flight when it wasn't mission critical. I see no reason why they would spend extra money on that when their goal is to make the flight as cheap as possible.

Give me a break people, my gut tells me this was a carefully planed event perpetrated by humans in compartmentalized programs that are fed up with the business as usual.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Really, fuel dumps are not only common, they're basically mandatory for a craft like this.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by FireMoon
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.

Agreed, it's just an assumption but since the footage stops while it's still rolling, and there has been no other release of footage, the assumption that it continues to roll is certainly NOT huge.

Slightly off topic:

I hope this thread becomes a lesson for you on how a mass sighting of a spiral event goes down...

It's good to reminisce!
Canadian Spiral




[edit on 7/6/10 by Chadwickus]

Originally posted by ngchunter


The second stage was reignited at some point during the first orbit for a "test burp," after which the remaining fuel was probably dumped. Either or both of those events would explain its appearance. Fuel dumps are frequently performed well after the launch, such as this dump from a non-spinning rocket seen from Iran:
spaceweather.com...
Here's another wild looking fuel dump, seen from Africa:
www.africanphotographyblog.com...

was this reignition documented?

Also to call this a non event is silly, It was a big event for the scores of people that got their blood pumping watching it

Originally posted by Project_Exo
was this reignition documented?

www.spacelaunchreport.com...

Also to call this a non event is silly, It was a big event for the scores of people that got their blood pumping watching it

It's a non-event in the sense that the rocket was safely in orbit and posed no danger to anyone on the ground. It's a non-event as far as the company's concerned. It's not their fault if people get all worked-up over seeing a rocket's upper stage venting. Sadly almost no one pays attention to rocket launches anymore, thus they were unaware that Falcon 9 was over their heads at that exact moment.

Can someone post a photo taken before 2005 of a rocket caused spiral that is similar to the Norway spiral????

Like this.



I know someone else has posted an old mag photos from the 80s but I still can’t see a spiral like Norway, China and Australia in the last 12 months. I don’t buy that these spirals we have seen recently are old news, sure rockets, fighter jets and anything else that fly’s fast and releases gases and liquid will produce atmosphere effects but nothing like this



If im wrong and these spirals have been happening since the invention of the rocket that’s cool means ive learnt something...


wait up I found one, mystery solved.





[edit on 7-6-2010 by deenuu]

Originally posted by deenuu
Can someone post a photo taken before 2005 of a rocket caused spiral that is similar to the Norway spiral????

...

wait up I found one, mystery solved.

Now THAT'S funny! Good one.

reply to post by FireMoon


The Roll started at around the 6 minute mark on the horizon

Thanks

ocker

reply to post by deenuu



here something different !











www.spaceweather.com...


Success SpaceX Falcon 1 - Flight 4 - September 28, 2008



This is what i Would like to SEE! in my life time !

Funny, this is exactly what i saw yesterday evening. Went out for a cig and there was this HUGE ball with stripe. I've seen these before but this one was greenish! It reminded me more of fireworks but it definitely wasnt that considering the speed and size of it. My wife saw it too!
I am in the south of Poland atm, btw.

Originally posted by deenuu
If im wrong and these spirals have been happening since the invention of the rocket that’s cool means ive learnt something...

wait up I found one, mystery solved.

Hahaha I agree, that was funny!

I need to get to twenty posts so i can make a thread =)

again, as in norway, share international says it was a spacecraft:

Share intl.

reply to post by art_vandeley

Originally posted by art_vandeley
again, as in norway, share international says it was a spacecraft:

Share intl.

If this was a spacecraft then it would be amazing. Now I know that this spiral appeared under the same circumstances as the Norway spiral, in that there is strong circumstantial evidence that they were both related to failed rockets. But what if these were indeed sightings and the coincidence was actually by design? I brought this question up earlier in a previous post in this thread, see post by Neo__.

If the UFO sightings have been increasing in our midst since the late 1940's (since we've become nuclear) then it would stand to reason that they would know who we are and what we are capable of. Or, better said, what we are incapable of, i.e. too early of a disclosure would freak us out in a detrimental way. What better way of approaching mankind than by a slow but increasingly presence in our sky. For many there is a logical solution for these apparitions. For others, and I would imagine especially for those that actually witnessed these events, there are still questions.


I'm not asking anyone to blindly believe Creme and his postulations, at least not without first reading the dozens of the Master's Articles and the Maitreya Messages and the many books and articles that Creme himself has written, and also the volumes of books on Esoteric Wisdom that both Alice A. Bailey and H.P. Blavastky before her published. Even if one read some of this stuff, then, and really only then, could one honestly judge and criticize what Creme is claiming.

In the meantime, Creme claims his master says that many more spectacular events can be expected. Let's wait and see.

reply to post by Neo__


Aliens left giant pyramids on the surface of the planet. The debate weather or not they exist is long over.


[edit on 9-7-2010 by Copernicus]