"Space Spiral" over Sudan Reported From Airliner

originally posted by: Catch_a_Fire
a reply to: thepixelpusher

I would say, from what we know regarding other spirals, it's more likely a launch failure.

But ...... over Sudan?

I wonder who?

If we were to go the rocket route, perhaps China?

China-Sudan relationship wikipedia

a reply to: Jonjonj

Seems like it's the space-x launch venting fuel after re-entry burn

(1/5) About the rumours that #Zuma or its Falcon 9 failed: I have a positive, photographically documented observation of the Falcon 9 upper stage venting fuel after re-entry burn, ahead of re-entry, over East Africa some 2h15m after launch. Pretty much where it ought to be.

link

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: JimOberg

Jim, does that not look like a rocket launch to you?? Maybe one gone wrong???

It look to me likes a routine post-insertion fuel dump, up to several hours after launch from somewhere anywhere else on the planet....

EXCEPT the double spiral versus the single spiral arm seen over SE Australia in June 2010 [an earlier Space-X launch].

BUT -- jumping to conclusions based on previous visual experiences is EXACTLY what gets SO MANY witnesses self-misled, that means we need to avoid premature hardening of perceptual interpretations.

ADD --... which is why consideration of this event is VERY germane to understanding the UFO phenomenon even IF [as I suspect] this isn't a 'true UFO'.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: JimOberg

Haha Jim, I like your sense of humor, you know this is from the space-x launch, but at least you play along!

Yes, they launched from Sudan!

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Jonjonj

Seems like it's the space-x launch venting fuel after re-entry burn

(1/5) About the rumours that #Zuma or its Falcon 9 failed: I have a positive, photographically documented observation of the Falcon 9 upper stage venting fuel after re-entry burn, ahead of re-entry, over East Africa some 2h15m after launch. Pretty much where it ought to be.

link

It seems that way, the author of that tweet is still uncertain however.

Hello @SpaceX: a question. Is it correct that a Falcon 9 upper stage spins when venting fuel after a deorbit burn?

Tweet

Can't be coincidental though I guess, so probably the most logical answer is the correct one.

a reply to: Jonjonj

I think he might be trying to verify the spiral is normal procedure to determine if there really was an accident with it or not. That's my take at least.

Since this is ATS I'm going to speculate it's a stealth satellite and they successfully launched it but will say it failed so they can test the stealth capability of it

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Jonjonj

I think he might be trying to verify the spiral is normal procedure to determine if there really was an accident with it or not. That's my take at least.

Since this is ATS I'm going to speculate it's a stealth satellite and they successfully launched it but will say it failed so they can test the stealth capability of it

True stealth: Tell 'em it's broken when it ain't.

a reply to: JimOberg

That was caught pretty close to the airliner...like wth? Someone practicing on shooting down airliners now?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Jonjonj

I .....
Since this is ATS I'm going to speculate it's a stealth satellite and they successfully launched it but will say it failed so they can test the stealth capability of it

Now I've got to kill you... [just kidding].

For high-secrecy payloads the early hours after launch is when you WANT to confuse potential observers. When we worked DoD shuttle payloads [if I told you which I'd have to... you know the rest], the key concealment issue was advance knowledge of WHERE/WHEN the orbit raise burns would occur, since an accurate measurement of burn time could, with ground tracking of delta-V observed, give insight into payload mass. The narrower an observing focus by a Russian missile-watching satellite [programmed pre-launch to stare at the expected burn location], the crisper the timing of burn start/stop that could be achieved. The wider [in time and space] the necessary search field-of-view, the less frequent the area scan, and thus the lower the precise timing of the engine burn duration. Concealment was focused on increasing the area and time an adversary would have to program his missile-watch payloads to observe, thus degrading the achievable precision of burn durations. At least, that was how it was explained to me.

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: JimOberg

That was caught pretty close to the airliner...like wth? Someone practicing on shooting down airliners now?

That's the rub -- judging distance to an unknown-sized light in the night sky is just a matter of random guessing, as experience has taught time and time again. Pilots are if anything WORSE at it than non-pilots.

That's been known for almost a century....

1936 REPORT ON WHY PILOTS ARE POOR OBSERVERS OF METEORS
adsabs.harvard.edu...

CONTEMPORARY PILOT MISPERCEPTIONS OF MISSILE/SPACE EVENTS
www.zipworld.com.au...

a reply to: JimOberg

since an accurate measurement of burn time could, with ground tracking of delta-V observed, give insight into payload mass

Couldn't they have simply just used varying fuel loads to keep it inconsistent? For example, include extra fuel specifically for venting purposes to give the impression the payload was different than it actually was?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: JimOberg

That was caught pretty close to the airliner...like wth? Someone practicing on shooting down airliners now?

Pilots are if anything WORSE at it than non-pilots.

I sure wish you would pop over to the TTS threads about the videos they released and tell that to the folks in there who say it's "Disclosure!" because the Navy pilot couldn't ifentify what he was seeing.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: JimOberg

That was caught pretty close to the airliner...like wth? Someone practicing on shooting down airliners now?

Pilots are if anything WORSE at it than non-pilots.

I sure wish you would pop over to the TTS threads about the videos they released and tell that to the folks in there who say it's "Disclosure!" because the Navy pilot couldn't ifentify what he was seeing.

Not my hill to die on.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
I sure wish you would pop over to the TTS threads about the videos they released and tell that to the folks in there who say it's "Disclosure!" because the Navy pilot couldn't ifentify what he was seeing.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Not my hill to die on.

It doesn't seem to do much good anyway. In that thread, I already posted a link to Jim Oberg's case studies in pilot misidentifications with the quote from Hynek about pilots making having the highest misperception rate of any class of witnesses Hynek studied. The poster who was talking about how unquestionably accurate pilot testimony is just replied that he still trusts what pilots say in spite of the evidence that they have a high misperception rate.

Logic and science aren't as welcome as you might hope in the field of UFOlogy. As the former director of MUFON who was open-minded and really curious about the phenomenon, Jim Carrion's desire for a scientific approach ended in his leaving the organization because contrary to their mission statement, they don't do science:

I think there are folks in the organization that are very much true believers and they discard a lot of evidence presented to them... I've fallen out of favor with MUFON in that they lost their way. Their motto is the scientific investigation of UFOs and you would be hard pressed to find anything that resembles science in that organization.

"I think that's reflected in these shows that they're doing on Discovery Channel. You know, it's almost embarrassing to watch to see MUFON lower themselves to repeating mythology and repeating folklore and repeating outrageous allegations, and not sticking to what they should be sticking to, which is pure science."

Jim Oberg noted the same thing about science not being rigorously applied to the study of UFOs about 38 years ago, so unfortunately not much has changed in 38 years.

Isaac Koi and some of his friends have tried to apply real science and investigation into claims and it's not welcomed by Ufology. Isaac was unfortunately forced out of UFOlogy too, apparently by people who don't want the truth to be known because their livelihood depends on re-telling myths and stories. I think they're still mad at him and his friends for exposing the widely circulating photo of an "alien" as a picture of the mummified body of a boy on display in a museum. If they were really after the truth, you would think they would be happy for this hoax to be exposed so everybody will know the truth, but the sad fact is a lot of UFOlogy is not based on a desire for truth.

He continued, "I have to say something that I think a lot of people in ufology may not like to hear, and that is - I think the bottom line is - there are folks that are in the field that call themselves ufologists, call themselves researchers, investigative journalists – whatever they want to call themselves, it doesn't really matter – but when their modus operandi is to perpetuate the mystery instead of solving it, we have a big issue. We have a big problem because the mystery will never get resolved as long as these people are out there hawking their latest theories or the latest controversy for controversy's sake, or their latest witness, or their latest 'lead' investigation – whatever you want to call it, it doesn't really matter – but if you don't have a sincere interest in truth, if you're simply interested in making the rounds of the UFO talk circuit... you're part of the problem, not part of the solution."

Those are some very insightful comments.

And of course ToTheStars documents say that they are an entertainment company, so at least they are honest about that, unlike MUFON who claims to do science but really doesn't. As Carrion says they act like an entertainment company too.

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: JimOberg

That was caught pretty close to the airliner...like wth? Someone practicing on shooting down airliners now?

A plane at cruising altitude can see hundreds of miles to the horizon. It could have been a couple of hundred miles away and much higher above the ground (the ground directly beneath the rocket) than the plane.

There are alot of weird weather phenomena going on lately, and swirls like this on top of some other strange weather makes it all hard to figure out what is ours and what not ?

We all know its the Warp Sig from this...

cdn.collider.com...[/url]

a reply to: JimOberg

Would an airliner show the curve of the earth? Is that photo suppossed to be from the airliner? If not where was that shot?.

again???
why is every space launch making spirals lately?

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: JimOberg

If these are just regular rockets, why haven't these spirals been seen all over the place until recently?

It's my understanding that these spirals are seen in connection to missile or rocket tests and flights, when the craft goes awry and begins tumbling, creating the spiral from exhaust and possibly fuel leaking.

I would imagine more spirals are being seen and recorded due to several factors;

More people are equipped with readily available tech to photograph and record these events.
More missile / rocket tests are occurring with more failures as a result of the greater numbers being flown.
Contracts are being handed out like sweeties to the wrong contractors.