Spectacular Phenomena In The Sky. What Is It?

I find it extremely interesting to see this topic continuing at a level which is obviously 90's style.

But hey, keep it up, as it does add more kb's to the overall status.

Still not convinced? It gets better: the EISCAT ionospheric heating facility documented a major surge of power usage -- right as the apparition was happening.

The power surged up to the maximum level the EISCAT facility is capable of generating -- nearly a gigawatt.

Look at the bottom of the graph to confirm that it was indeed the morning of December 9th, 2009:

reply to post by Imagir


Would you be so kind to provide a source for the image?

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Imagir

 

Would you be so kind to provide a source for the image?

Thanks in advance.

I'm really kind...

The source:
dynamite.eiscat.uit.no...

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Imagir]

reply to post by Imagir


Thankyou.

Not too sure how this is evidence when the previous day shows the same power output over a longer period of time:

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


BRITWARRIOR,

1) Several videos have been posted showing the same - not similar - effects from past rocket failures. Read the thread

2) There has even been a computer animation provided by a scientist obviously familiar with jet propulsion systems as well as atmospheric/chemical phenomena/reactions

3) Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you a) ignore the facts that have been plainly provided to you, and b) your spelling is atrocious. Are you even a teenager?

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

BRITWARRIOR,

1) Several videos have been posted showing the same - not similar - effects from past rocket failures. Read the thread

2) There has even been a computer animation provided by a scientist obviously familiar with jet propulsion systems as well as atmospheric/chemical phenomena/reactions

3) Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you a) ignore the facts that have been plainly provided to you, and b) your spelling is atrocious. Are you even a teenager?

Agreed and

People who are against the rocket explanation are failures in life, there is enough evidence to suggest it was a rocket. You come here and patronise those who looked into the masses of data. The rocket launch was even logged to take place when it did. People like Phage totally owned the zealous anti-rocket group and you buried that thread over your mounting garbage and "lol I know it ain't a rocket!" nonsense.

The thing is YOU are as much responsible for learning about what happened as much as those who posted the facts and data proving the rocket theory. You don't seem to ever learn, and for that no one of importance will ever listen to you.

Go ahead and bury me for not being here very long - until you open up and stop believing the wildest theories imaginable, you will always be ignored by those who can actually do something about the supposed "cover-ups".

[edit on 28-12-2009 by kirksteruk2k10]

Maybe it was a rocket, but I don't believe that the rocket was launched from the White Sea. It's too far away. Andøya Rocket Range (Norwegian rocket launch site) is in the wrong direction, and they claim they didn't launch any rockets on that day. If it was a Russian rocket, it must have been launched near the Norwegian coast (from a sub). It could have been a Swedish rocket from Kiruna. But whatever it was, the Russians "admitted" it was their rocket and that it was "launched from the White Sea". The Swedes have not admitted to any rocket launch, so if it's theirs they must have covered it up. If it was a Russian rocket launched near the Norwegian coast, the Norwegians and the Russians must both have covered up that fact for some reason. The White Sea is too far away, imo.

reply to post by Hellmutt


I'm totally Agree whit you Hellmutt... but...but...

Therefore excluding the Missile test and EISCAT... what remains?

A mysterious and disturbing celestial event that the Scandinavians and the Russians have tried desperately to cover....

May be the EXTERNAL EVENT remains the only explanation!

reply to post by Hellmutt


Why do you think that it's too far away? We can sometimes see the satellites/ISS several hundreds of miles away. The visibility depends on the objects altitude and lighting conditions.

reply to post by DGFenrir


Have you seen the videos? I.e. this one? Do you still believe that the spiral was as far away as the White Sea? If it was, we wouldn't be able to see the spiral "so big" and spinning "so fast" as you can see in the videos. And also, it would have been seen from a much wider area.

reply to post by Hellmutt


Do you remember The Charged Aerosol Release Experiment a few months back?

This was the experiment to study the effects of noctilucent clouds launched by NASA on a Black Brant XII rocket.

I see some similarities between the two events, like the speed the gas ejects and dissipates despite the high altitude and the faint 'black hole' appearing as it disappears.

Here's the video of it and a video of the Norway spiral:


C.A.R.E Experiment


Norway Spiral

reply to post by Hellmutt


It was also visible from Skjervoy. In both places it was seen in the east.

Why wouldn't it spin so fast?

reply to post by Chadwickus


Rockets are launched from Kiruna, Sweden. Some of these rockets release 20 gallons of water into the atmosphere "to see what happens". It could have been such rocket or similar. Look at the map. Kiruna is not that far away from Tromsø. The White Sea is far, far, far away.


NISSE

In the experiment water will be released at about 95 km altitude. The possible impact of the water to the upper atmosphere will be explored by using the powerful EISCAT radar system.

Oh, look. EISCAT...

Originally posted by DGFenrir

Why wouldn't it spin so fast?

Because if it was as far away as the White Sea, the spiral would've been many kilometres wide. That's why. Pictures are pictures, but video is realtime

Originally posted by Hellmutt

Originally posted by DGFenrir

Why wouldn't it spin so fast?

Because if it was as far away as the White Sea, the spiral would've been many kilometres wide. That's why. Pictures are pictures, but video is realtime

And what would stop it from becoming many miles/kilometers wide?

reply to post by DGFenrir


Nothing is stopping it from becoming many kilometres wide, but whatever created this spiral effect (water or fuel from a rocket) would not spin around so fast (as we can see in the videos) in a several kilometres wide spiral. If the spiral was so big, it would spin slower if seen from such a great distance as the White Sea. These videos are recorded with digital cameras, not telescopes.

reply to post by Hellmutt


The C.A.R.E. experiment released it's payload at over 100kms altitude, I'm not really arguing where it was launched from, just pointing out that from viewing the C.A.R.E. footage, it shows the chemicals from being released, spread out and dissipated in a matter minutes. Much like the Spiral.

Oh, look. EISCAT...

Yes, the EISCAT radar.

Unrelated and separate from the VHF, UHF and heater arrays.



[edit on 29/12/09 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Hellmutt


The spiral itself isn't spinning, the center of it is. The spiral is only expanding and dissipating.

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Yes, the EISCAT radar.

Unrelated and separate from the VHF, UHF and heater arrays.

But placed at the same location? Perfect for launches from Kiruna.


Look at this map. Notice the distance from Tromsø to the White Sea.