Spectacular Phenomena In The Sky. What Is It?

reply to post by JayinAR


Thank you. That makes sense.

What about the blue spot light? When you watch the vid you see that it's not from a slow cam shutter.

Best,

N

reply to post by Nichiren


I don't know, it isn't my hypothesis.

I would guess that maybe the blue stuff, being the fuel, was heavier than the (water?) and therefore lingers longer than the water does?

reply to post by JayinAR


I'm not putting out a hypothesis, I'm commenting on a fact LOL. There is a blueish spot light illuminating the spiral. It actually looks like it's projecting the spiral. See with your own eyes: www.vgtv.no...

Best,

N

reply to post by wx4caster

The basic problem with your hypothesis is that Russia has stated that this was a test of the SS-NX-30 (Bulava), a semi-ballistic MIRV platform. The missile does indeed leave the atmosphere, its third stage being a liquid fueled rocket. While spinning a missile may make it more stable it makes a nightmare of in flight maneuvering.

Other than that, your hypothesis is great!

Phage,

Can you explain the blue spot light in this video here: www.vgtv.no... ?

It almost looks like it's projecting the spiral. It's not the rocket trace, because the cone extends all the way to the edge of the spiral.

Best,

N

reply to post by Phage


Just out of curiousity, could you stabilize its spin as it is leaving the atmosphere? By... I don't know, changing the angle of attack, as it is leaving the atmosphere?

reply to post by Phage


this is true, spinning a rocket would wreak havok on trying to pilot it to any degree.

So if we are to believe the russians, we would have to put faith in coincidences, that not only did the rocket have a navigational failure, but that the failure somehow stabilized. And the rocket successfully exited the atmosphere anyway.

this means that by luck,

1: the leak/failure didnt result ic catastrphic loss of flight
2: the leak was in a favorable trajectory for the rocket to exit
3: the leak failure was able to produce an effect of some magnitude without deplenishing the fuel supply enough to cause catastrophic failure of flight.

it has been a good while since statistics, but what do you think the odds of everything going just right, and i wonder just what was able to be learned from the "failure"

any thoughts?

reply to post by Nichiren

I don't see a blue spotlight in that video but if you go back to the eyewitness report quoted in the OP, the blue trail was produced at the same time as the spiral, as if the spiral created the trail. This is consistent with the simulation seen elsewhere of a "leaky" rocket.

"Spiral" also walked across the sky, leaving a bright blue track.[/quot]

Originally posted by MischeviousElf

Chemical stargate? or is Kachina waltzing towards us.....

According to the Indian prophecy the next sign would be the "House thrown into the sky" or space station will fall to earth then TSHTF big time.

Kind Regards,

Elf

I'm not sure, the blue star kachina itself seems to be the house itself. It means if there's something mysterious up there falling apart, it'll produce the blue star kachina. Now.. but you have to ask the witnesses first, did the spiral ring appear first or the blue trail?

I have not read every post on this thread, but there is talk about that this could be caused by CERN?

What do you think Phage.

I have said before (not on this site) that if the boys and girls started playing around with CERN it could create havoc for earth and everyone and everything on it. Mmmmh.

You dont just play around with something like this and expect everything to go right. One little thing goes wrong and you unleash hell.

Originally posted by Nichiren
Phage,

Can you explain the blue spot light in this video here: www.vgtv.no... ?

It almost looks like it's projecting the spiral. It's not the rocket trace, because the cone extends all the way to the edge of the spiral.

Best,

N

it is the angle of view that makes the spiral seem to go to the edge.

in my oppinion it is the ejection of some liquid proppellent or frozen exhaust that dissipates due to winds and the fuel being heavier than the surrounding atmosphere.

it would be cool if we had more of a triangulation of videos, but it would seem that although the pictures were taken from several different areas, the general location of the rocket was in the same vector from all vantages...

Originally posted by wx4caster
reply to post by Phage

 

this is true, spinning a rocket would wreak havok on trying to pilot it to any degree.

So if we are to believe the russians, we would have to put faith in coincidences, that not only did the rocket have a navigational failure, but that the failure somehow stabilized. And the rocket successfully exited the atmosphere anyway.

this means that by luck,

1: the leak/failure didnt result ic catastrphic loss of flight
2: the leak was in a favorable trajectory for the rocket to exit
3: the leak failure was able to produce an effect of some magnitude without deplenishing the fuel supply enough to cause catastrophic failure of flight.

it has been a good while since statistics, but what do you think the odds of everything going just right, and i wonder just what was able to be learned from the "failure"

any thoughts?

What then do you believe the light was?

If you're going to talk about odds and likelihood, what's more likely? That a very unlikely malfunction in a perfectly ordinary ballistic missile produced a spectacular display in the outer atmosphere, or that some paranormal event is to blame?

What then do you believe the light was?

If you're going to talk about odds and likelihood, what's more likely? That a very unlikely malfunction in a perfectly ordinary ballistic missile produced a spectacular display in the outer atmosphere, or that some paranormal event is to blame?

i am not suggesting that it was paranormal.

i am suggesting that maybe these russians have developed a means of producing max kinetic energy of a projectile while keeping it stable.

in reality this could be done in a number of ways.

the most plausible being that the rocket ascends to a certain hieght while in spiral or whatever you want to call it and then when it reaches a certain altitude, an additional stage or booster kicks the object on the appropriate trajectory to impact.

in reality, it would not be far fetched to test this with no target, because you dont have to "hit" anything.

you dont have to deliver an explosive payload with this type of projectile to destroy a target because the energy of the object on impact with the target would destroy both objects without the aid of explosives.

and the hypothesis fits well with eyewitness accounts and evidence.


EDIT: to separate to thoughts... it ran together methinks

[edit on 10-12-2009 by wx4caster]

reply to post by JayinAR

I'm not sure what you mean by "stabilize its spin". I don't think (but I could be wrong) that the spin is intentional. I think (really nothing but speculating) that the blue trail is burned exhaust which is being lit up by ionization effects and the "white" spiral is unburned fuel being spewed out of the side of the missile. I think the spin is a result of the escaping fuel. Obviously, the simulation made an impression on me.



reply to post by wx4caster

I think I may have answered your questions (from my pov) but I'll add that a failure does not necessarily mean catastrophic. In the case of a weapons platform it means the missile would not have delivered its payload.

Originally posted by the_denv
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

Okay, now the Russian confirmed that their rocket containing TEN NUCLEAR MISSILES failed and that billions of dollars was flushed down the toilet.

Is it just me or are the general population overlooking the general crime here?

The Russians just got caught with a rocket containing TEN NUKES over Norway while Barrack H. Obama was in Oslo, Norway!

Ten Nuclear Russian Warheads over the top of America's Presidents head and everyone is getting on as if everything is normal?



[edit on 10/12/2009 by the_denv]

Where did the ten nukes come from?
The article I posted said:

The Bulava missile is designed to carry six individually targeted nuclear warheads over a range of up to 6,200 miles (10,000 km), the BBC reported. The missile had been touted as Russia's newest technological breakthrough to support its nuclear deterrent, but the numerous failures have led to second thoughts.

"designed to carry" -- not carrying. I really don't think they would put nukes on a test launch.

reply to post by Phage


Actually, nevermind. I think I was making it a little more difficult in my mind than it needed to be.

Wasn't this thing supposed to carry six independant warheads?

If that is the case I would presume all you would need to do is get it out of the atmosphere in a general direction and then it could deploy its secondary missiles from there?

Eh, I don't know... it is pretty darned cool, whatever it was.

But yeah, I've retracted my first statement on this topic about this being a failure. I have a suspicion it wasn't a failure at all.

reply to post by Phage


may i ask you to ponder this...

with weapons, it is generally the idea to deliver max impact with minimum effort.

mind you i am aware that i am dismissing the russians story, at least the part about what TYPE of missle it launched in this pondering, and i am aware that is not the best science to speculate.

If i were to take a large projectile, a solid one, no explosives, and attache to the end of it a several stage rocket, one for launch, one for acceleration, and one for final "aiming" with the flight characteristics of this rocket to be a rotating conical projectile with no payload in the end traveling at great speeds (it would be all fuel and projectile, maybe some guidance systems and such), once i hit a satellite (i say satellite because there is no other purpose to lauch a rocket into space as a weapon... what other targets are there?)

anyway, one my projectile hits the satellite at those speeds, there would be no real need for explosives because the energies involved would obliterate the target and projectile. Thus no payload.


imagine a large sophistocated bullet, shell and all, just larger scale.

reply to post by Phage


I watch the vid on an Apple 15" laptop in full screen mode and the "light cone" is definitely there. I'm stunned that you are not able to see it with your equipment.

Please try again and I apologize for being a pain, but I believe this light source would negate the entire missile story.

Best,

N

I really shouldnt be telling you all this but screw national security ...we all die in the end and it cannot be prevented..

Can you say CERN?
666
public.web.cern.ch...

reply to post by superluminal11


please explain just exactly how CERN or the experiments there are causing this phenomenon?

i have posted my hypothesis, and i would like to hear yours...