Norway spiral in China today

Some people get way too serious when other people get their facts wrong. Pretty sad. A simple and friendly correction to the person who was mistaken would have been much better than making them feel dumb, and sounding like an ass your self.
What a reply ha ha ha belter

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by Bluebelle

 

Can you ask him what time he saw the event?

Yes, no problemo. Dont recall him saying what time it was but he said he was going to bed when it went off so Im assuming that as he isnt 5 years old, the 11pm ish time that people are coming out with is the correct one. But I shall ask him.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Psychoses
You come to ATS to sniff out story ideas, then go and write up some half thought out misleading propaganda and then come back to ATS to use the same story to back up your "views"(not to mention gaining a valuable back link for search engine indexing), all the while failing to disclose to the members of ATS that you are in fact the author of the article you are referencing.

... Very misleading on your part Jim!

Let's see, I use my real name, and have the same name and photo on my published articles, and you use a pseudonym -- and I'm the one who's being misleading? Thanks for the morning chuckle.

I have dug out -- and published -- more solid new evidence about major world UFO reports than anybody else I've encountered here at ATS, and it's the nature of that evidence -- stuff that calls into question ideas you enjoy believing -- that you object to, seems to me.

ATS is a wonderful resource for fresh info, fresh ideas, and solid, candid debates -- but many folks just seem to use it to reenforce their own pre-existing biases. It's really good for much more than that, for the intellectually courageous -- of whom there are a lot on these threads.

What new stuff has come out of China in the last 24 hours? That's of current and urgent concern, as the govt there clamps down.

Thanks for your response Jim.

As far as using a pseudonym, this is a conspiracy website and it is the advice of the site administrators that no personal information should be shared. If you haven't noticed, using a pseudonym is the norm here and not the exception.

I am surprised that you claim to have presented more evidence of UFO's here on ATS than any other member because quite frankly, I've been here for more the 7 years and your name doesn't ring a bell.

I agree that ATS is a wonderful resource, but if you are going to present information to the community shouldn't it be based on some sort of fact, rather than conjecture?

Seeing this is Above Top Secret i'll let you in on a secret. The reason people have stopped turning to the Main Stream Media for information is because they try to pass off fancifull rhetoric as fact. That type of thing may keep Ma and Pa Kettle amused but you can only fool some of the people all of the time.

Seeing as you are a professional journalist you should have no problems with me examining your story. (Pun intended )

'Did missile test spark Chinese UFO reports?

In an ironic encore, yet another secret military missile test has sparked widespread UFO reports from surprised ground witnesses.'

Wow Jim! Secret missile test, you must be well connected to be privy to that kind of information, especially considering you're talking about the chinese.




That is the image you provided in your story. My question to you is that the secret missile they fired or is it simply window dressing?

"On Dec. 9, a Russian Bulava missile was launched from a submarine within sight of northern Norway, resulting in a spectacular spiral display and a spate of UFO sightings."

The claim that this spiral is caused by a Bulava missile launched from a submarine is a far stretch, considering your own news network clearly stated on December 9 2009 that a Russian Military spokesman stated that "On this matter we do not confirm, we do not deny, we do not comment," and further, a Norweigan News agency has quoted Russian sources who deny it was a missile launched by russia.

Maybe I should send an email to your editor for clarification on this point?

Witnesses in China's inland provinces of Xinjiang and Gansu weren’t as well equipped with cameras as last month's Norwegian witnesses were, so the only images reaching the West merely show fuzzy-colored clouds and streaks.

Would you say thats a fair description of those images Jim? You could have at least said "fuzzy blue and green clouds" for a more accurate description seeing as you didn't bother to reveal the images to your readers.

a single-sentence news item was released by the Xinhua news agency. “China conducted a test on ground-based midcourse missile interception within its territory on Monday,” Xinhua reported.

It seems the reality of the situation is this whole story is based on one sentence gleaned from a Chinese news source?

The names, or even the generic types, of missiles weren’t given. The locations of the two missile launches — for the target and the interceptor — were never specified, nor was the time of their launches.

Even though you write this, you go on to say,

Speculation in the Western press went on for days without converging on any consensus, except that the warhead had been a ‘hit-to-kill’ guided missile.

There was no speculation in the western press and the only person who is claiming it to be a ‘hit-to-kill’ guided missile is you, and the mindless fools who have copied your story.

and the story goes on................I think I've proved my point.

Seems there is a lot of evidence that calls into question the ideas you seem to believe in Jim and quite frankly, you are a golden example of a spin doctor.

Originally posted by Psychoses

Seeing this is Above Top Secret i'll let you in on a secret. The reason people have stopped turning to the Main Stream Media for information is because they try to pass off fancifull rhetoric as fact. That type of thing may keep Ma and Pa Kettle amused but you can only fool some of the people all of the time.

I have no arguments with your general assessment of mainstream news media. The question is – are the things I personally write credible or not? I have a track record which can be checked – and I think you’ll find my personal reputation over the past 30 years or so to be quite high.

Seeing as you are a professional journalist you should have no problems with me examining your story. (Pun intended )

I am a professional human spaceflight operations specialist (22 years at NASA Mission Control in Houston) with a sideline in writing and public speaking, with special interests in the Russian and Chinese space program (I’ve testified before Congress on those subjects), and a flair for foreign languages and travel. Journalism is just one of the many things I do – it’s not who I –AM-.

'Did missile test spark Chinese UFO reports?

In an ironic encore, yet another secret military missile test has sparked widespread UFO reports from surprised ground witnesses.'

Wow Jim! Secret missile test, you must be well connected to be privy to that kind of information, especially considering you're talking about the chinese.

You’d be surprised what sort of information actually was available, or deduceable, to diligent researchers. I’ll show you [below]. You can learn how to do it too.

That is the image you provided in your story. My question to you is that the secret missile they fired or is it simply window dressing?

I suggest you read the photo caption for the answer: “Visitors step on the stairs next to a Chinese missile on display at a military museum in Beijing on January 12, 2010. China has said it successfully tested a missile intercept system, in what analysts said was a show of its advanced air defense capabilities amid tensions over US arms sales to Taiwan.”

"On Dec. 9, a Russian Bulava missile was launched from a submarine within sight of northern Norway, resulting in a spectacular spiral display and a spate of UFO sightings."

The claim that this spiral is caused by a Bulava missile launched from a submarine is a far stretch, considering your own news network clearly stated on December 9 2009 that a Russian Military spokesman stated that "On this matter we do not confirm, we do not deny, we do not comment," and further, a Norweigan News agency has quoted Russian sources who deny it was a missile launched by russia.

Maybe I should send an email to your editor for clarification on this point?

Maybe you should turn your desk appointment book from Dec 09 to Dec 10 and read the news on that and subsequent days. You can’t be seriously suggesting that these December 9 stories – the day of the sighting – are the LAST words on the subject?

Witnesses in China's inland provinces of Xinjiang and Gansu weren’t as well equipped with cameras as last month's Norwegian witnesses were, so the only images reaching the West merely show fuzzy-colored clouds and streaks.

Would you say thats a fair description of those images Jim? You could have at least said "fuzzy blue and green clouds" for a more accurate description seeing as you didn't bother to reveal the images to your readers.

You are free to describe the photos as you see fit, and I am too. As for using the Chinese photographs, NBC does have an issue with stealing copyrighted material – something that may not bother you, but has legal implications. This was the reason – the only reason – that neither of these photos was used, but we published a link to websites that DID use them, for anyone interested in seeing them there.

a single-sentence news item was released by the Xinhua news agency. “China conducted a test on ground-based midcourse missile interception within its territory on Monday,” Xinhua reported.

It seems the reality of the situation is this whole story is based on one sentence gleaned from a Chinese news source?

It ‘seems’ so only to a deliberately ignorant eye-closer. You left off the conditional intro phrase that this one liner was the first public notice – and that subsequent releases told more and more (but by no means all) of the story. It’s possible you overlooked the press coverage, but don’t try to twist your own ignorance into proof the coverage didn’t occur.

The names, or even the generic types, of missiles weren’t given. The locations of the two missile launches — for the target and the interceptor — were never specified, nor was the time of their launches.

Even though you write this, you go on to say,

Speculation in the Western press went on for days without converging on any consensus, except that the warhead had been a ‘hit-to-kill’ guided missile.

There was no speculation in the western press and the only person who is claiming it to be a ‘hit-to-kill’ guided missile is you, and the mindless fools who have copied your story.

Inter alia, check this blog for well-informed speculation on that very issue:
www.armscontrolwonk.com...

Throwing the phrase ‘mindless fools’ around is risky considering how foolish your own attempted criticisms have been.

and the story goes on................I think I've proved my point.

Seems there is a lot of evidence that calls into question the ideas you seem to believe in Jim and quite frankly, you are a golden example of a spin doctor.

By all means let’s discuss the evidence, including a lot of it that you obviously were unaware of – and unwilling to believe. This is the arena for illumination – sparks cast bright lights – let’s roll.

reply to post by JimOberg


To be perfectly honest Jim, and this is not about your personal credibility, I don't find the link you authored and presented in this thread to be credible. I think it's based more on your own opinion rather than proven fact.

If you really believe that the Norway spiral was a failed missile, feel free to debunk this thread, Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !

If you can do that, you'll have more credibility amongst the community at ATS than you'll know what to do with.

Originally posted by CONTACT
reply to post by YourPopRock

 

(also reply to "john124") :

I am bad in English, but I don't think I was bad in brain using "Norway spiral" as OP thread title,
because if I wrote HAARP or rocket test or meteor or UFO or Earthquake Light or Worm Hole etc instead of "Norway spiral" , I believe I would have more scold than I already had.

Personally, i do think the title is somewhat misleading. I mean if you look at the previous examples of sky spirals filmed and photographed in China and compare them with the photos of the recent UFO in Xinjiang, they don’t really look alike, the eye witnesses account of Xinjiang’s UFO don’t exactly fit with the sky spirals either.

The Sky spirals
www.zh5000.com...
www.zh5000.com...

www.youtube.com...

(www.abovetopsecret.com...)

The recent Xinjiang UFO
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...

I think instead of “Norway spiral in China today”, “UFO in China’s Xinjiang province again” is more appropriate.

And as I mentioned, Xinjiang is no stranger to UFO sightings, and I will bet you some are harder than this one to attribute to missile testings.

Like this mysterious object which was filmed by a couple while touring the province in 2005,
image2.sina.com.cn...

The mysterious object was following their vehicle for about 1 minute or two, and then emitting a strong flashing light, and as fast as a lightning bolt, it suddenly vanished into the thin air in a matter of a second.

The whole thing was caught on video camera, if this has already been posted on ATS, let it be a reminder that this region is no stranger to UFO phenomenon, if not here is the video of this mysterious object

www.tudou.com...

Now, I wonder what kind of “missile” was that.


[edit on 17-1-2010 by sunsky]

Originally posted by Psychoses
If you really believe that the Norway spiral was a failed missile, feel free to debunk this thread, Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !

It was debunked on page 28 of that thread, like it or not. PhotonEffect provided us with this link.

reply to post by timewalker


It was over Russia.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by cripmeister]

Whatever. You and your buddy Jim Oberg the govt. shill dis info agent can have it.

reply to post by cripmeister


This debunk only works if you ignore that this phenomenon was not sighted all by people in Sweden, Finland, and Russia, while it was seen all over Norway, which is much further than these other countries from where this theory claims the spiral must originate.

The other problem is that this would mean that the Phenomenon is about 500 miles away, and it would have had to have been massive and extremely bright. From my understanding, shuttle launches can't be seen for five hundred miles. The flumes left behind by rockets do not glow.

And yet, if it was that big and bright, why wasn't it seen by people much closer?

maps.google.com...:en-USfficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=US+Hornet&fb=1&gl=us&hq=US+Horne t&hnear=San+Francisco,+CA&cid=0,0,3540376326982033198&ei=VQ1SS9DQFYmksgOmxLGICA&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CA4QnwIwAA

His mountain profiles do not match up exactly, and it seems that the person who wrote this has not actually visited these spots. The method used to triangulate this spiral is a nice concept, but I seriously doubt its accuracy.

Even then, an rocket that didn't explode after falling apart from such sharp turns for a rocket of that size, would have had to have traveled a great deal of distance o make these spirals over a period of ten minutes, and it would have looked more like a large spring than this spiral.

Most likely what we are seeing here is another form of the Hessdalen phenomenon. That is found in China as well as in Norway, and is probably similar to the foo fighter phenomenon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by poet1b


Thats a sound logic, no reports of a spiral seen from Sweden or Finland, respective media just mentions Norway spiral since it seems that only Norwegians were able to see "the spiral" clearly which IMHO mean that the spiral originated from within Norway.

Regarding the greenest of the two pictures on this page...Observe the line comming from the light, just to the left of the light? I think thats a street lamp pole myself.

Thoughts anyone?

Originally posted by rhines
reply to post by poet1b

 

Thats a sound logic, no reports of a spiral seen from Sweden or Finland, respective media just mentions Norway spiral since it seems that only Norwegians were able to see "the spiral" clearly which IMHO mean that the spiral originated from within Norway.

This is the problem with people dropping into an on-going debate without reading the previous discussions (like re the location of the spiral).

On the very long thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...
there are many relevant arguments and facts that folks on this thread seem enthusiastically ignorant of, and the most important one
to these comments concerns the weather satellite IR images
for that morning which show what areas were clear, and what
areas were clouded in. Add to that the very helpful discussions of
how the much brighter the sky was for regions to the east, towards sunrise, and the phony issue of "why didn't other people see it?" is shown to be already answered to the complete satisfaction of all rational people.

It's another example of the argumentation fallacy of "I never heard about
that -- so it cannot be true", by people who deliberately did NOT read those threads but STILL thought their opinions were worth offering.

Originally posted by timewalker
reply to post by JimOberg

 

You are being a hypocrite.,,, We know you like the Chinese and Russian's "official" smoke and mirrors story.

This is the most delicious irony of this entire theme. After I've spent decades unveiling Soviet (later, Russian) space deceptions and coverups, and a number of recent Chinese ones as well, I get ACCUSED of falling for those same coverups. The truth is much more amusing.

What I've come to believe based on scads of evidence that timewalker has never even bothered to read is that for decades those governments engaged in top secret military space and missile activity, that was often perceived by the public as 'UFO' activity in the sky, and reported as such -- even in the controlled Soviet and Chinese news media, which was unaware of the actual cause of the reports.

On occasion, the Soviet government took advantage of, and encouraged, these opportunistic camouflage stories, to deepen the secrecy around its military activities.

Consequently, those Western ufoologists who insisted (and to this day insist) that the sightings were of genuinely unexplainable phenomena, and could NOT be secret Russian or Chinese military experiments, were actually themselves the dupes and tools of those governments' coverups. For the famous Soviet-era UFO flaps, such as launchings from the secret military space base at Plesetsk, or upper-stage firings and fuel dumps in orbit, or tests of space-to-earth thermonuclear warheads that were banned by international treaty, Western ufologists remain faithful adherents to the Soviet camouflage cover stories long after the Soviet Union has itself collapsed -- the last loyalists of communist lies. It's almost touching -- if it weren't so hilarious, considering their own proud posing as "courageous penetrators of gummint lies".

How many of you folks reading this are among them, sincere patsies of Kremlin coverups, in your fervent 'UFO certainties' about Russian and Chinese reports? Look at yourselves in the mirror and try to grow up, and get clear of the mind-clouding.

Chineseguy, any progress on documenting this?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ChineseGuy
according to the explanation issued by authority, these were missile experiments.

Links, please. I have seen no quotation from Chinese authorities on this.

Hseih hsieh ni.

Originally posted by sunsky
And as I mentioned, Xinjiang is no stranger to UFO sightings, and I will bet you some are harder than this one to attribute to missile testings.

No argument there. Grown-ups in the UFO studies field recognize that aside from an unknown core of unknown phenomena, there are hundreds of prosaic causes for most UFO reports.

They also realize that the argument, "I won't accept Explanation 1 for case 1 until you can also prove Explanation 1 fits case 2, also," to be pathetically puerile.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim, I didn't see any links to weather information, but I find it hard to believe that in a five hundred mile circular radius around this phenomenon, because the White Sea is about 500 miles away from the areas where the pictures were taken, everything was fogged in except for Norway.

In the pictures we see of this spiral, the skies look as clear blue as they possibly get, but who knows, more than a hundred or more miles away, I don't think one would see the cloud coverage.

What should a rocket look like 500 miles away if it can bee seen?

Here is a link to the shuttle visibility.

www.space.com... aunch+of+the+space+shuttle+is+typically+visible+from+much+of+the+East+Coast.+The+most+dramatic+view+is+from+inside+the+yellow+circle.+But+within+the+r ed+circle%2C+skywatchers+may+see+very+bright%2C+pulsating%2C+fast-moving+object+that+resembles+the+brightest+stars+in+the+sky+from+3+to+8+minutes+afte r+launch.+For+viewers+near+the+edges+of+the+circles%2C+however%2C+the+shuttle+will+hug+the+horizon%2C+so+an+unobstructed+view+is+needed.+Credit%3A+SPA CE.com%2FStarry+Night+Software

But within the red circle, skywatchers may see very bright, pulsating, fast-moving object that resembles the brightest stars in the sky from 3 to 8 minutes after launch.

I have my doubts that large link is going to work, let me try two others which should get you to the page.

www.space.com... aunch+of+the+space+shuttle+is+typically+visible+from+much+of+the+East+Coast.+The+most+dramatic+view+is+from+inside+the+yellow+circle.+But+within+the+r ed+circle%2C+skywatchers+may+see+very+bright%2C+pulsating%2C+fast-moving+object+that+resembles+the+brightest+stars+in+the+sky+from+3+to+8+minutes+afte r+launch.+For+viewers+near+the+edges+of+the+circles%2C+however%2C+the+shuttle+will+hug+the+horizon%2C+so+an+unobstructed+view+is+needed.+Credit%3A+SPA CE.com%2FStarry+Night+Software

or

The article on the subject with a link.

www.space.com...

In the Southeast United States, depending on a viewer's distance from Cape Canaveral, the "stack" (shuttle orbiter, external tank and solid rocket boosters) can be easily followed thanks to the fiery output of the solid rocket boosters. The brilliant light emitted by the two solid rocket boosters will be visible for the first 2 minutes and 4 seconds of the launch out to a radius of some 520 statute miles from the Kennedy Space Center.

Here is a link to a night launch of the Space Shuttle from about 10 miles away from the launch site.

www.space.com...

Note that the exhaust trails are black, and do not glow. Within a minute and a half it looks like a very large bright star. Only the rocket flame is visible, not the exhaust trails which are theorized to create this spiral.

How big is this rocket seen from Norway supposed to be? It seems from this video evidence it would have to be much, much bigger than the space shuttle launch vehicle.

Other important points about observing a space shuttle launch from a distance, from this article.

Depending upon your distance from the coastline, the shuttle will be relatively low on the horizon (5 to 15 degrees; your fist on an outstretched arm covers about 10 degrees of sky). If you're positioned near the edge of a viewing circle, the shuttle will barely come above the horizon and could be obscured by low clouds or haze.

The space shuttle is being launched into orbit, and only appears to be about a fist height above the horizon from the edge of its visibility, about 500 miles away, which would be the distance of the people in Norway reporting this event. I guess this rocket that must be much bigger than the space shuttle launch vehicle is also shooting up at a much steeper angle than the space shuttle.

Reports are that the Norway spiral was visible for ten minutes. Yet, the discovery blinks out after 8 minutes.

Discovery will seem to "flicker," then abruptly wink-out 8 minutes and 23 seconds after launch as the main engines shut-down and the huge, orange, external tank (ET) is jettisoned over the Atlantic at a point about 870 statute miles uprange (to the northeast) of Cape Canaveral and some 430 statute miles southeast of New York City. At that moment, Discovery will have risen to an altitude of 341,600 feet (64.7 statute miles), while moving at 17,579 mph and should be visible for a radius of about 770 statute miles from the point of Main Engine Cut Off (MECO).

What is this rocket carrying? Enough nukes to take out the planet, or construction equipment for the moon or something? What facilities do the Russians have to launch such a massive vehicle in that area?

When you compare this Norway spiral to a shuttle launch, I would say it becomes clearly obvious that this can not be some missile failure glimpsed from so far away. This missile would have to be bigger than the space shuttle launch vehicle.

reply to post by poet1b


Yup, I just could never see the spiral as rocket created.

Thanks for all your work.

reply to post by SLaPPiE


You're welcome. It is lots of fun. I have been waiting before getting involved in this one.

Man, those long links threw the page off balance.



[edit on 18-1-2010 by poet1b]

Thanks for the detailed line of reasoning, it helps identify where the assumptions lead you off track and where additional factors come into play -- see below your message:

Originally posted by poet1b
Note that the exhaust trails are black, and do not glow. Within a minute and a half it looks like a very large bright star. Only the rocket flame is visible, not the exhaust trails which are theorized to create this spiral.

How big is this rocket seen from Norway supposed to be? It seems from this video evidence it would have to be much, much bigger than the space shuttle launch vehicle.

Other important points about observing a space shuttle launch from a distance, from this article.

Depending upon your distance from the coastline, the shuttle will be relatively low on the horizon (5 to 15 degrees; your fist on an outstretched arm covers about 10 degrees of sky). If you're positioned near the edge of a viewing circle, the shuttle will barely come above the horizon and could be obscured by low clouds or haze.

The space shuttle is being launched into orbit, and only appears to be about a fist height above the horizon from the edge of its visibility, about 500 miles away, which would be the distance of the people in Norway reporting this event. I guess this rocket that must be much bigger than the space shuttle launch vehicle is also shooting up at a much steeper angle than the space shuttle.

Reports are that the Norway spiral was visible for ten minutes. Yet, the discovery blinks out after 8 minutes. ....

When you compare this Norway spiral to a shuttle launch, I would say it becomes clearly obvious that this can not be some missile failure glimpsed from so far away. This missile would have to be bigger than the space shuttle launch vehicle.

First, there is a fundamental difference between orbital launches and ICBM surface-to-surface launches, which I think you are acknowledging. To reach orbit, one must get to orbital velocity horizontally, as soon as possible, so the shuttle aims for engine cutoff at an altitude of about 60 miles, exactly as you wrote -- while moving only slightly higher than horizontal to coast out to apogee (maybe 160 miles) an hour later and fire engines there to circularise. In contrast, ICBMs "loft" their trajectories at a significant angle at cutoff, to maximize ground range and also to have a reasonably large descent angle over the target (improves aiming) -- say, 30-40 degrees or so lofted, and the same for reentry. This steeper ascent (which you acknowledge) puts them higher sooner than orbital launches -- they can coast out to 600 miles or higher within ten minutes of cutoff.

Second, shock waves are indeed visible in the dark -- it's not just the flame of the engine that watchers see. I've seen these shock fronts from Florida as have many thousands of other watchers, for a wide variety of rockets including much smaller ones than shuttles. The shock front is also visible in night-time shuttle launches from the rocketcam on board, looking backwards -- it's that giant white 'ring of fire that encircles the tail, look for it on youtube.

Third, the timing of the Tromso event was fortuitous in providing backlighting from the rising sun. That illumination, for example, kept the low-on-horizon initial plume trail visible until it dispersed -- as long as ten or fifteen minutes after launch. Higher plume effluent would have ballistically dispersed and fallen within a few minutes of ejection.

Note that the higher-altitude plume effluent -- the solid fuel combustion products -- would still have been flying up and outwards as well, late in the profile. That's because although they are ejected at about 8,000 ft/sec (Isp X G), the missile is already achieving a speed of 15,000 to 20,000 ft/sec, so the exhaust particles retain a large fraction of that up-and-away velocity.

Fourth, the actual nozzle flare brightness seems to have been much lower for Tromso reports than for shuttle launches, consistent with the much smaller size of the engine -- exactly as you suspect. The visible effects appear to have been exhaust and shockwave related, not directly from the brightness of the exhaust. On the shuttle ascent, the main engine plume is actually nearly invisible -- hydrogen flames are -- and the brightness reported by witnesses is associated with atmospheric shockwave plume effects.

Your comment on duration of shuttle thrusting is insightful, since for ICBM launches it's even worse -- their main thrusting period can be five minutes or less since they are not constrained to limiting G forces for comfort of passengers.

Perhaps somebody else reading this can help you find the link to the IR weather sat images, or show you how to locate them directly from their sources. It sounds like a skill that you really should acquire in order to assess questions such as wide-area visibility, in the future.

As an exercise, how about finding for us the IR WX pix over Xinjiang at 12:00 GMT Jan 11, the time of the UFOs spotted there?

Your questions are good ones, even if you still are too quick to make up "factoids" to fit your preferred solutions. By asking the questions, you have embarked on a dangerous pathway that may shake to the foundations some of your favorite beliefs if you have the courage to persist. I'd be happy to help you along this trip but be warned you may change your mind on long-cherished ideas, and lose friends.

Originally posted by timewalker
Whatever. You and your buddy Jim Oberg the govt. shill dis info agent can have it.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by cripmeister

 

This debunk only works if you ignore that this phenomenon was not sighted all by people in Sweden, Finland, and Russia, while it was seen all over Norway, which is much further than these other countries from where this theory claims the spiral must originate.

Did you read this? It wasn't seen from all over Norway just from the northern part. The spiral was seen from Sweden, this photo was taken in Puoltsa near Kiruna. The cloud coverage over eastern Finland probably prevented people in Sweden (and Finland) from seeing it.