It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


23 Dec UFO in Russia, 5 different videos posted.

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Smokersroom
The level of self-delusion in this thread is mindblowing. It's a rocket. End of story.

The halo effect is caused by the light bouncing off a thin, high level layer of clouds.

It appears to be 'slower than a jet' because it's a long way away. It's called parallax.

True that. I'm pretty sure it has already been confirmed as a rocket by several sources.

Just do the research! The time's match apparently to a T.

Edit: "Russia's military communications satellite has crash-landed in Siberia after failing to reach its planned orbit. The mishap was due to a malfunction in the rocket's third stage, industry experts say.

The Meridian-5 satellite was carried to orbit by a Soyuz-2.1B rocket launched from Plesetsk spaceport in the Arkhangelsk region at 1208 GMT on Friday.

According to preliminary data, the satellite fell to the south of the city of Novosibirsk."

Close-ups video:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
edit on 24/12/11 by murkraz because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:37 PM

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by NeoVain
I am sorry but where do you get this info? From what i can find, this info is incorrect. According to news sources, it crashed near tobolsk, siberia, not novosibirsk.

Back on page 1, somebody posted a news source. I was going by that.

The RIA Novosti news agency reported debris was found in the region of Novosibirsk...

Maybe RIA Novosti, or spaceflightnow are wrong.
Maybe the other sources are wrong.
We should check.

It's not that the sources are wrong, it's because when people see an unidentified light or object in the sky, and this is true of natural meteors or man made reentries, they can easily misjudge the distance and threfore altitude of what they see.

It can seem as though the meteor/object crashed close by, but we know that the atmospere slows down even relitively large objects at 10's of km altitude, way below the 3 or 4 km/s needed for the object to be luminous.

We also know that from previous cases where a bright meteor or fireball was seen by lots of people, we always get conflicting reports of where the object crashed, as I pointed out with this example in my thread on this relevant topic, for the reasons I pointed out above.

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:11 PM
"Fragments of a Russian satellite that failed to launch properly have landed in a street named after cosmonauts in a remote Siberian village" Link

It seems that the satellite story even comes with an alibi.

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:36 AM
Nobody seems to be mentioning the second object, which is clearly visible in at least two of the video clips. It's smaller than the main object, has no halo, and is a short distance behind the first and moving at the same speed and in the same direction.
Part of a rocket? Maybe, but wouldn't it be falling to earth rather than travelling a horizontal trajectory? Unless of course the rocket had already exited the atmosphere. Is there any mention of what stage the launch failed?
edit on 25-12-2011 by thoiter because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 05:16 AM
reply to post by thoiter

"Early information suggests that the Soyuz-2 suffered a malfunction during the third stage and the satellite came down in Siberia,” a source told the news agency.

Read more:

At first I thought the 3rd stage failed to fire but it says malfunction, so the cloud could be like a fuel dump, the brightness could just be reflection from the sun, and or partial burn. It was obviously very high, most NASA rockets reach orbit in 2 stages, a third stage usually is for earth escape velocity/ So the malfunction was very high close to orbit.

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Phage
Obvious conclusion. It is the Soyuz launch

Might be obvious to you Phage, but certainly NOT so obvious to me.

Here's a new Youtube vid posted less than 24 hours ago purporting to show the final moments of the failed attempt to launch the Meridian satellite into orbit.

If this is a genuine vid of that Meridian failure, and I have no reason (at the moment) to suspect it's not genuine, then the vids presented in the OP MUST be of some other phenomena.

The following still from the new Youtube video shows what most of us expect a failed rocket launch thats breaking up in the atmosphere to look like ...

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 05:39 AM
Looks like Soyuz just re-entered a few hours ago, so unless it entered over Russia, went back up, then re-entered over Germany...

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 06:24 AM

Originally posted by tauristercus
If this is a genuine vid of that Meridian failure, and I have no reason (at the moment) to suspect it's not genuine, then the vids presented in the OP MUST be of some other phenomena.

They are. They are vids of the launch.

What you posted were stills from the reentry.

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 10:04 AM
reply to post by DocEmrick

That re-entry was not part of the failed launch. It was the third stage from the Soyuz which took astronauts to the ISS on December 21st.

edit on 12/25/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 12:38 PM
want to take this opportunity to wish everyone a merry xmas

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 12:45 PM
Going by the information provided here/argued here, and from what I've been able to glean from the information superhighway, this vehicle lifted off from Plesetsk, Arkhangelsk Oblast shortly after 1200 hrs on the 23rd, was captured on camera(s) over the Chelyabinsk salient between ~1600-1830 hrs, and then came down near Novosibirsk at an indeterminate time. I'm not sure if anyone else is seeing the obvious problem with the official explanation for this, and truth be told, it took the better part of twenty-four hours for me to completely get my own brain around it.
The distance from Plesetsk to Chelyabinsk is ~1500 km; if in fact the vehicle did pass to the north of the Chelyabinsk salient in the daylight video, then it certainly would have been averaging subsonic speeds for the duration of its flight. Parallax is a concrete phenomenon, but it does not begin to explain why it would take a booster vehicle (and its payload) four hours to traverse such a distance, even factoring in the two-hour time zone differences. All the more if said vehicle failed, as the remnant pieces/parts would not have the forward momentum to maintain a steady horizontal trajectory over the course of two hours (based on a conservative timeline of existing footage), especially if said remnants had come from a vehicle that had been traveling at subsonic speeds in the first place.

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by admiralmary

And a Merry Christmas to you as well!

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by Aeolus1970

You are failing to account for time zones.

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aeolus1970

You are failing to account for time zones.

Ah, confused GMT with UTC+04. Mea culpa.

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:06 AM
reply to post by NeoVain

It is raining in this clip could the halo around the object be the rain getting deflected off some form of energy field or maybe the rain is getting vapourized as it hits the energy surrounding the object cool vid S&F

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:24 AM
Thanks again to all posters from all points of view on this thread. What has happened here is a faithful miniature recapitulation of the reaction of world ufology to the realization that many major UFO reports, beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, were being caused by manmade space and missile events, particularly in the USSR.

Probably the most ‘classic’ case was the 1977 ‘jellyfish UFO’ over Petrozavodsk:
but there were many, many others.

I wrote about this phenomenon in the pro-UFO literature, such as the MUFON ‘UFO Journal’ in 1982
and FATE magazine in 1983
and the popular science press such as OMNI magazine [1994], here

Some specific cases were the notorious ‘exactly at 4:10 AM’ multiple pilot / radar / physical traces case near Minsk, here
and here
and this other ‘classic’ in August 1987, OMNI magazine "Space Sex Dream Solved" [] I described a report from March 2-3, 1978, from 18-year-old Brazilian Jose Inacio Alvaro, who witnessed a ball-shaped UFO crossing the sky and later responded to telepathic messages to meet a female alien in a field for interplanetary intercourse. Hypnotic regression by UFO investigators confirmed the story. I show that the UFO was a sunlit fuel dump from the booster rocket carrying the Molniya 1-39 into space, which was passing over Brazil at that time. But it's still a classic "true UFO" on the internet.


These are from Vallee’s book on ‘UFOs in the USSR’

November 30, 1964. 15:00 U.T. Shamakhinskiy Observatory, Azerbaijan -- Astronomers M. Gadshiyev and K. Gusev saw an object moving from west to north at about one degree per minute. The head of this object was about twice the diameter of the moon. It looked like a ring with a sharp internal edge and a diffuse outer edge. In the center was a star like object which was a point even when seen through a telescope. It left a tail that was visible for over fifteen minutes. No sound was heard. OBERG: THIS WAS THE LAUNCH OF ZOND-2, LEAVING PARKING ORBIT AFTER LIFTOFF FROM BAIKONUR AN HOUR BEFORE.

November 25, 1967. Midnight. Mikhaylovka -- V. Rogov was listening to the radio inside his home when a bright green light called his attention outside. He saw an object flying at great speed across the sky. It disappeared like a meteor but it then reappeared on the same trajectory. It was round and flat, with bright edges. The phenomenon lasted ten minutes. KOSMOS-193 WEATHER SATELLITE FROM PLESETSK.

The reaction of top ufologists around the world was the same as we saw hear: defiant denial, clumsy ‘debunking’ of the iron-clad prosaic explanations, deliberate blackout of the facts of the cases and their true explanations – see for example Richard Haines’ steadfast refusal to acknowledge the phenomenon as exemplified by my still-unanswered ‘open letter’ almost two decades ago, here:

ADD: The 'authoritative' has numerous bogus reports
based on space events, such as:

67-12-03 Kamenniy Cape, 'bright object followed the plane'. Actually, launch of Kosmos satellite from Plesetsk.

second add -- details of ufo story:

December 3, 1967, 3:04 PM: The "Mys Kammenny" ("Stoney Cape") UFO, named for the point of origin of an Ilyushin-18 flight carrying scientific personnel back to Moscow, from the records of Soviet ufologist Feliks Zigel. This "multiple sighting" involved scientific workers on the aircraft and traffic controllers on the ground. The
"intensely bright" light followed the aircraft as it maneuvered. Actually it was the Kosmos-194 spy satellite being launched. American ufologist Bill Moore: "Zigel's reports tend to be limited to those UFO cases that have managed to withstand the most rigorous scientific investigation." Red Skies: A History of UFOs in Russia, UFO Report, June 1980.

77-10-11 at 18:00 local over Ryazan, a pulsating light flew 'alongside' an aircraft for 24 minutes. At 15:14 GMT, the Kosmos-958 satellite was launched eastwards from Plesetsk, north of Ryazan.

87-04-22, over Kazakhstan, an object 'approaching the plane', was the launching of the Progress-29 supply drone to a Soviet space station.

These ‘solved’ UFO reports continue to pollute the best ‘UFO case files’ and to poison any attempts to rationally hypothesize about the origin of such reports. See

Comments posted here help us understand the persistence of this mythical world-view, and also provoke dismay from all of us who hope to actually learn something useful from this amazing worldwide social and cultural pheneomenon.

edit on 26-12-2011 by JimOberg because: add catalog and Vallee examples

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:39 AM
Except it took less than a day for folks here to figure out that this was actually a failed rocket launch. I don't see any major news sources touting this was a UFO, so really not the same. Also, I still think the fallback of "secret black technology" is used too often, as a last bastion to debunk when all conventional explanations have failed.

More notable imo, is how we have a very small handful of videos that recorded this event, although it was witnessed in a city with a population of over 1 million people. Goes to show that an amazing looking phenomena or UFO even over populated areas, won't necessarily be photographed or caught on video, which is the clamor we get when a sighting like the one in Salta occurs. "Why aren't there more videos? Obviously dozens of people should be able to catch the thing on video if it passed over a city!" No, that's not necessarily the case.

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:43 AM
Swamp gas or weather balloon?

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:02 AM

Originally posted by jimnuggits
A chinese Soyuz swamp gas refraction. Obviously...

It's the amazing amount of denial that I really enjoy.

If a UFO wrote the Preamble in lights and landed on some of the ATSer's faces, began to wiggle, they would still say 'CGI.'

This occurred at the same time as the Soyuz launch, was in the same area of the sky as the Soyuz launch, and looked like a rocket through the atmosphere...

I would be in denial if I DIDN'T think it could have been a rocket launch. Could it have been somethjing else? Sure, but the evidence makes it likely that it was the Soyuz launch.

edit on 12/26/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 12:23 PM
Hasn't anyone put a still through software analysis yet? I did, and at 600% zoom I can clearly make out a guy in a red suit and tiny flying reindeer.

Seriously, I am good with the Soyuz Rocket explanation. Nice work folks.

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in