Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mothership Enters Atmosphere Over Russia At Night, Frightens Public, Jan 21, 2013.

page: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by canucks555
I still don't see a mothership. I would like to participate in the thread more but cannot as I don't see the mothership.
Not trying to be a sarcastic prude. But I cant see the mothership and op wont answer back..


I'm not trying to claim it is a mothership, I could care less, but I thought I'd answer you're question. Nobody seems to have mentioned the section of the video at 3:32. Watch from there, that is what they are referring to as a 'mothership'.

I don't really want to debate what it is, but nobody has mentioned it, so yeah.




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   
I'm no expert but it seems like a rocket launch gone wrong to me.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks for the kind words.

The scary thing I've come to realize is that the MORE familiar a person is with a certain category of visual phenomenon, the more likely they are to misinterpret other things they see to fit their experience.

Our brain seems to work from partial visual fraghments that cue up existing 'packages' of familiar objects, often -- to save time, and maybe avoid becoming saber-tooth-tiger-poop, 'filling in' a visual impression as quickly as possible, and in the most immediately dangerous form.

So in my case, I might see a high altitutde contrail at an unusual angle, and 'see' an ascent plume. This really happened a little more than a year ago out in LA when a CBS News traffic copter got that 'secret SLBM launch' video that was a nine days wonder until it was matched to a scheduled cargo aircraft overflight.

Everybody here contributes their own experience base, and their own requirement for answers, not knee-jerk instincts. The questions I've gotten, and the sincere and reasonable misunderstandings about spaceflight i've encountered, have been awesome contributions to my own gradual realization of how each of our own visual experiences need to be pooled, and overlaid. And it's a reminder to me that my own head is full of similar silly notions about phenomena you all are intimately familiar with -- and generously share.

The bigger issue of rockets and space events shaping Soviet/russian UFO experiences is an awesome story, too, that I had the immense pleasure of sleuthing out over the last quarter century. There are a lot of detailed case studies and overviews of my results on my home page.

This one video is just one example -- EACH view of each launch is a small data point in public reaction to them, and their cultural impact.

Whatever is behind the overall phenomenon, it's provided amazing insights into many aspects of culture, perception, and folklore. To me, it's really worth digging into, because it is NOT 'all nonsense' at all. Even if it may be 'mostly'. But then, isn't everything else in life, too?






With all due respect. I think the one issue is you aren't answering many questions in layman's term.

You seem to be giving us too much metaphor.

Although the personal opinions are pretty cool.


Why does the top of the "Explosion?" Illuminate for so long. Is there a type of chemistry behind this?

Why does it seem it's not affected by wind?

It's obviously over 8pm here since it's pretty dark. Whats the deal with the circular gray cloud towards the end of the video?

Although this might be a rocket launch. It's just weird that it would continue to illuminate light for what ever reason?

Just need to answer the easy questions for us uneducated rocket scientists lol.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Izak4K
Something fell out of the sky, nothing extraordinary.
Here is identical video:


Ooooh this is good. So where did the "Rocket" go to at the end of the video? Wouldn't it continue to ascend or explode if that were the case?

Shouldn't you continue to see propulsion?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Thanks for posting, I love how in these postings it takes you to other sites that have photos of blurred buildings on mars etc. Thanks for posting this. Not sure if it is a missile launch.

Not saying this is true in this case. But we do have to wake up to the fact that as are photo capabilities advance and when we get ace reporters like Linda Mouton Howe you will start to realize that there are ufo crafts out there that DO know how to cloak. This may not be the case here, maybe it is a missile launch But look out for testimonies of people that have seen a craft cloaking itself. As in the case of an interview on Coast to Coast and George Noory and Linda Moulton Howe about a prison guard seeing one disappear in mid air. Look for that interview on Coast to Coast. I think one of the most interesting cases ever on Coast to Coast. With the exception of George Knapp's interview with the authors of Aliens in the Forest book experience in 1964. A year that I think reveals the truth about mars civilization underground.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by JrDavis
 



Ooooh this is good. So where did the "Rocket" go to at the end of the video?


It eventually burned out as the payload entered orbit.


Wouldn't it continue to ascend or explode if that were the case?


The upper stage would enter orbit, tumbling behind the payload.


Shouldn't you continue to see propulsion?


There would be no propulsion after the upper stage burned out and entered orbit. The conical glow you see is the expanding gas left behind by the upper stage, illuminated by the Sun, which is over the horizon. The actual rocket is not visible.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
Everybody remember the Norway Spiral? That was a rocket launch. It also "persisted" for quite awhile in the sky. It is also, still to this day, the coolest damned thing I have ever seen.



Yes first hand witness.

It was then and is still now as this one is, a Hologram.

It is a message to those who know.

The spiral a few years back I believe had something to do with Obama.

These things are a sign for some that something has been done.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I'm not convinced that this is a rocket launch. Normally when a rocket is launched, the exhaust trail leads from the ground, to the sky. This doesn't seem to happen here. The exhaust plume begins way up above the ground. And it's illuminated. Normally, the exhaust doesn't give off light. Sure the light could be reflecting from the source, but the fact remains, the exhaust trail doesn't go to the ground. If this is a rocket, then they would have had to launch it from mid air...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by PollyPeptide
I'm not convinced that this is a rocket launch. Normally when a rocket is launched, the exhaust trail leads from the ground, to the sky. This doesn't seem to happen here. The exhaust plume begins way up above the ground. And it's illuminated. Normally, the exhaust doesn't give off light. Sure the light could be reflecting from the source, but the fact remains, the exhaust trail doesn't go to the ground. If this is a rocket, then they would have had to launch it from mid air...


Your assumptions and half-assumptions are tripping you up.

The plume is apparently sunlit, and as pointed out earlier on this thread, the lowest part is reddish, giving indication that it is sunlight over the horizon [which gets whiter the higher you go] doing the lighting. Below the reddish part any lingering plume will be in darkness.

It is unreasonable for you to expect the videotaper to provide you a view from liftoff, unless you half-assume they knew in advance when and in what direction to point their camera. It's more reasonable to full-assume they only began videtaping some time after liftoff.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by fireyaguns
 




These things are a sign for some that something has been done.

These 'signs' (atmospheric spirals associated with rocket launches) have been documented since the early 1960's.

I posted proof in the Norway Spiral Revisited Thread.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Sorry folks, what the video shows is one of many aerial manifestations of staged rocketry. Nothing more!



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Could it have been one of these....?

edit on 30-1-2013 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
For da moderland.
For da МАДАР-SHIP!!!

Anyone claiming this is a mothership, should be laughed at. Period.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by messar
I'm no expert but it seems like a rocket launch gone wrong to me.


I don't think there's any need to postulate the rocket launch "went wrong" at all.

All the visual features -- and spirals as well - have been reported for entirely succesful rocket launches,
for decades.

The ziggy-zaggy exhaust trail is an artifact of high altitude wind shear, you can even see it in space shuttle ascent videos.

Spirals are routinely caused during warhead deploy and spinup, by the brief burst of roll engines.

Longer-lived spirals, as over norway in dec '09, can be momentum dumping during third stage on test flights at shorter than maximum rfange. With solids, there's no way to turn them off, so if you don't want to overshoot your target, you can either roll, or open diversion doors on both sides of the thrust chamber [note that the Norwayspiral was 'double'].

Failures usually manifest themselves in other spectacular ways but they do tumble on occasion, usually irregularly.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


So you're saying that a rocket was launched from the ground. Went up along the horizon, Failed. Then diversion doors were opened to remove solids thus creating the spiral that we see above the solids that are illuminating from the suns reflection?

So someone was watching and saw that it was failing and opened diversion doors after it failed going up? To release the rest of the solids?

Why would they do that if it failed due to loss of solids? Wouldn't the solids have already been released?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JrDavis
reply to post by JimOberg
 


So you're saying that a rocket was launched from the ground.



I have no idea, because none of us have ANY idea of the location [aside from 'Russia'], date, time, and direction of line-of-sight of the apparition. And THAT is because Waring and the other nincompoops that clutter the internet with these sequences refuse to provide those basic data. And THAT is done because you and so many others in their target audience ALLOW them to get away with it.

Went up along the horizon, Failed.

The standard ascent profile of a space rocket or long-range missile is to rise vertically a and then pitch over to a nearly horizontal path. Your wording, 'went along the horizon', is entirely different in meaning -- as if you want to misinterpret it to mean 'moved level across my line of sight from one side to the other'. The rocket could well have wound up moving horizontally but mostly AWAY from the observer so its angular rate would be very small. See the difference?

As to me saying it failed, please read what I said again and find the answer there.


Then diversion doors were opened to remove solids thus creating the spiral that we see above the solids that are illuminating from the suns reflection?


Not to remove solids -- to allow BURNING exhaust from the solids to spray out in directions other than directly backwards. It's not ME 'saying' this -- it's standarde thrust control for solid rocket missiles for about fifty years or so. You don't have to believe me -- talk to any other rocket scientist.

If the rocket is rolling, the sideways-streaming exhaust plumes [usually two, on opposite sides of the missile] can paint a giant spiral in the sky. For many years, these have been seen and described and drawn and photographed and recently videotaped.

I made no reference to the sun's reflection, I don't know where you got that idea. The plumes can be illuminated from behind by sunlight streaming over the horizon, or through the pinker layers at the edge of the atmosphere. Again, this has been observed and recorded for decades and I'm sorry you were never made aware of it.



So someone was watching and saw that it was failing and opened diversion doors after it failed going up? To release the rest of the solids?


No.


Why would they do that if it failed due to loss of solids? Wouldn't the solids have already been released?


They didn't do it. I have no earthly or unearthly idea how you could imagine I was trying to portray that scenario. You seem to be self-confusing yourself by injecting outside ideas and misconceptions into a half-read description. Please re-read the entries and concentrate on what they say without overwriting them with your own guesses.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JrDavis
Ooooh this is good. So where did the "Rocket" go to at the end of the video? Wouldn't it continue to ascend or explode if that were the case? Shouldn't you continue to see propulsion?


No, but your misconception is very widespread, that rockets go into space by going 'up' and farther up. If that were the case, your expectation would be correct. The light should have risen to the top of the field-of-viiew and exited upwards.

But from a distance, this never happens. Rockets launch up but as soon as the air gets thin enough they curve over to near-horizontal flight. From many discussions I've had with relatives, school kids, and airplane seatmates, I've come to realize this idea really IS alien to the popular concept of spaceship trajectories. But it's true.

And if the rocket is flying horizontally away from you, its angular elevation can actually DECREASE as its distance grows. In a stabilized field of view, it evens moves downwards. In a rocket-centered FOV, tracking the rocket as it moves, background or foreground objects [stars, perhaps, or an aircraft or bird passing through the foreground] move UPWARDS and look like 'overtaking UFOs'. I'm sure you've seen many examples of this confusing effect on youtube -- but never explained, of course.

It really DOES look weird and is easy to misinterpret. Thanks for giving me the chance to explain it.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andromerius

Originally posted by foodstamp

Originally posted by EartOccupant
OK Missile launch...

But why does the smoke trail stays enlightened? Even when bended and for minutes..?

My first taught would be the rocket engine still producing enough light downwards to enlighten the trail..
But minutes long?

Strange stuff.
edit on 28-1-2013 by EartOccupant because: spelling


Perhaps the propellant used is plasma like? Maybe that was the real test. Not the rocket, but instead, the propellant.

It's not a far stretch to think that some kind of propellant they used is either super heated and/or reflecting itself off of the sun that high in the air. There are countless kinds of gases plasmas and other propellants that could be reflecting the light of the sun.



That is just speculation for this does not look anything like a rocket launch or it's abort procedure. Rockets reach orbit or travel thousands of miles in a minute or two, not like this for several minutes. They do not leave a glow behind. Whatever this is, and i am leaning towards a natural phenomenon this is NOT a rocket.


Well sir, I'd say your wrong....



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The trail isn't the focus. You're left with an orb.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjsirius
reply to post by DJW001
 


The trail isn't the focus. You're left with an orb.


I'm not following you. Please say it another way.





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join