Alleged Russian missile produces spectacular visual event over Norway

[Moontanman]

I don't see the moon in any of the pics or see any distortion.

[mooeypoo]

First picture -- what's the bright white spot? is'nt that the moon behind the ejecta of the rocket? Though a bit distorted.

If you look at the other two pictures, the moon is again a bit distorted, look:

 

 

Is that not the moon?

[Moontanman]

No that is the rocket trail, no moon, the moon is not in that pic at all. The spiral is supposed to be part of the rocket exhaust.

[mooeypoo]

What's the bright spot?

[Moontanman]

In the center of the spiral? It's the rocket. at least that's what they say

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If you look in the 4th pic there is a black zone at the center with no bright spot.

[mooeypoo]

I thought that at first, but then I saw this one:

doesn't look like the rocket in the middle...it;s not the moon? Well, it seems a bit too big, but that would make it weird for a missile too. I thought that was the moon, distorted.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Besides, the ejecta is getting thinner towards the bottom - which I thought that's where the direction is headed - the ejecta expands with time, so the narrower parts will lead to the current location of the missile...

 

Am I getting this wrong, though?

[Moontanman]

I thought that at first, but then I saw this one:

doesn't look like the rocket in the middle...it;s not the moon? Well, it seems a bit too big, but that would make it weird for a missile too. I thought that was the moon, distorted.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Besides, the ejecta is getting thinner towards the bottom - which I thought that's where the direction is headed - the ejecta expands with time, so the narrower parts will lead to the current location of the missile...

 

Am I getting this wrong, though?

 

The thin bottom is the beginning not the end, this is a weird thing for sure. I am willing to believe zolar for now, he seems to have the inside line on this. The dark circle is not the moon it's the inner part of the spiral after the fuel ran out of the rocket. i can believe this was a one time event but if it happens again exactly this way then it's either staged or something really odd that needs to be looked into.

[StringJunky]

Here's the latest news with details confirming it's almost definitely a failed Russian missile and a better photo:

 

 

http://www.barentsobserver.com/failed-missile-launch-caused-strange-light-over-northern-norway.4663494.html

Edited December 14, 2009 by StringJunky

[Zolar V]

no that is not the moon in any of the photos. Let me explain

In the first image you posted with the really clear spiral, that is the exaust of the rocket after it has "planed out" for lack of a better word. have you ever taken a glowstick and spun it around really fast? the effect is a swirl in the same shape and fashion as that one, due to centripital? er centrefugal force. when the missle got up at that altitude it had such an extreem centrefugal velocity that it could no longer project itself to a higher altitude and "planed out" thus causing the bright center of the spiral pattern

 

in the second image, the rocket has run out of fuel. the spiral begins to burn from the inside out as a result. if you wana test this theory just get a simple model rocket (like 40 bucks) or make one form toiletpaper roles and ?paper mache? , for the fins. get a d or g class engin, and put it in the center of the rocket, you could add a nozzle to the engin to have a greater vertical velocity. doing a simple test with this you could note how the exaust is in the same pattern as the blue/green light exaust in the pictures. in order to get the spiral pattern at the end, you could incorperate a defect into the nozzle or make the rocket slightly top heavy. my theory on the russian rocket is a defect of the nozzle. possibly a fusulage hole causing the propellent to be expelled from a side getting a centrefugal velocity, but it could also be a combination of topheavy and defect in the nozzle itself. personnaly i assume the fusulage error due to the burining propellent in the spiral itself and its subsequent burning up after the fuel is depleated

[Moontanman]

I'd like to see them reproduce that exactly one more time, lol

[Zolar V]

I'd like to see them reproduce that exactly one more time, lol

 

if your emphasis is on 'exactly', then i say easily.

[Moontanman]

I figured this was on of those once in a life time random effects that just happened.

[anomalies]

I don't know, but I heard on radio that 1) the spiral was too perfect to be a missile out of control; 2) the area it came from was not a missile launch site; 3) the area it came from was close to a HAARP-like scalar array site.

 

That thought is scary.

 

Comments?

Edited December 21, 2009 by anomalies

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It was supposed to have been launched from a submarine. Doesn't matter if it was a "missile launch site" -- submarines can launch from anywhere they'd like.

 

Where'd you get the HAARP information?

[Zolar V]

I don't know, but I heard on radio that 1) the spiral was too perfect to be a missile out of control; 2) the area it came from was not a missile launch site; 3) the area it came from was close to a HAARP-like scalar array site.

 

That thought is scary.

 

Comments?

 

all your observations can be addressed in the previous posts in this thread.

[CaptainPanic]

I don't know, guys...

 

I've kept quiet for a while before jumping to my own conclusions... but all the pictures I've seen so far do not look like a missile to me.

 

Missiles generally spew out gasses at supersonic velocities from shaped nozzles. That is 100% guaranteed a turbulent flow. In addition, the atmosphere is likely (but not necessarily) turbulent too.

 

With at least one turbulent flow in a possibly turbulent medium you do not expect geometrical patterns like we see here.

You would certainly expect to see some kind of deformation of the plume because of different wind speeds at different altitudes.

 

Also, exhaust gases don't glow-in-the-dark.

 

Why wouldn't this be an EISCAT / HAARP and/or Russian equivalent experiment?

According to wikipedia, EISCAT is based on Tromsø, and has a:

The European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association (EISCAT) operates an ionospheric heating facility, capable of transmitting over 1 GW effective radiated power (ERP), near Tromsø, Norway.

An "ionospheric heater facility" sure seems to fit the bill better here. Blast some radiation at ions... the usual thing that happens is that you bring an electron in an excited state. When it falls back, it will often produce a photon - light. Seems like a decent explanation for the glow-in-the-dark effects.

 

The location (Tromsø) however is 1000 km away from where the phenomenon was observed.

 

The Russians have an identical machine. (listed in the same paragraph as the above quote)

Russia has the Sura Ionospheric Heating Facility, in Vasilsursk near Nizhniy Novgorod, capable of transmitting 190 MW ERP.

 

Only thing that does not match again here is the location. The article suggests this was seen at the lower Volga (Kapustin Yar). The site mentioned above is again an estimated 1000 km more north. Then again - maybe 1000 km isn't that much if you're dealing with something as high up as the ionosphere.

In both the Norway and Russia case, the phenomenon was observed about 1000 km south of where some ionosphere heating facility is built. Coincidence? I'm not sure. It seems more likely than that those crazy Russians are launching missiles around the lower Volga.

 

I'm not able to find an explanation of the patterns you see - spirals and such... but rockets also don't do something like this... and when rockets fail, they blow up. They don't create perfect glow-in-the-dark-spiral-exhaust-gas-plumes.

Edited December 21, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[Zolar V]

I don't know, guys...

 

I've kept quiet for a while before jumping to my own conclusions... but all the pictures I've seen so far do not look like a missile to me.

 

Missiles generally spew out gasses at supersonic velocities from shaped nozzles. That is 100% guaranteed a turbulent flow. In addition, the atmosphere is likely (but not necessarily) turbulent too.

it is turbulent you just have to look closely, the volume of the gasses over the extended area and the distance from the viewer make it look laminar but if you take a closer look it is distinctly opposite.

With at least one turbulent flow in a possibly turbulent medium you do not expect geometrical patterns like we see here.

You would certainly expect to see some kind of deformation of the plume because of different wind speeds at different altitudes.

 

Also, exhaust gases don't glow-in-the-dark.

they dont glow in the dark, they are burning.

Why wouldn't this be an EISCAT / HAARP and/or Russian equivalent experiment?

According to wikipedia, EISCAT is based on Tromsø, and has a:

 

An "ionospheric heater facility" sure seems to fit the bill better here. Blast some radiation at ions... the usual thing that happens is that you bring an electron in an excited state. When it falls back, it will often produce a photon - light. Seems like a decent explanation for the glow-in-the-dark effects.

 

The location (Tromsø) however is 1000 km away from where the phenomenon was observed.

 

The Russians have an identical machine. (listed in the same paragraph as the above quote)

 

the 1 gw mentioned in the quoted posts quote is nothing really. 1 gw projected into the atmosphere is really nothing compared to the size and volume of the affected area. if you had 1 Terra watt or petta watt it might be believable. besides thos stations measure the ionosphere for EM waves, how EM waves are affected by the different 'stuff' happening int he ionosphere and troposphere. and if you are a believer of retarded conspiracy then it is also a MIND CONTROLL STATION. similar to the HAARP in Alaska. LOL

 

Only thing that does not match again here is the location. The article suggests this was seen at the lower Volga (Kapustin Yar). The site mentioned above is again an estimated 1000 km more north. Then again - maybe 1000 km isn't that much if you're dealing with something as high up as the ionosphere.

In both the Norway and Russia case, the phenomenon was observed about 1000 km south of where some ionosphere heating facility is built. Coincidence? I'm not sure. It seems more likely than that those crazy Russians are launching missiles around the lower Volga.

 

I'm not able to find an explanation of the patterns you see - spirals and such... but rockets also don't do something like this... and when rockets fail, they blow up. They don't create perfect glow-in-the-dark-spiral-exhaust-gas-plumes.

 

there is quite the already submitted and explained and accepted solution to your problem. rockets. if you really don't believe me, just try the above rocketry experiment and you will see what i speak of. also just because a rocket fails does NOT MEAN IT WILL BLOW UP! in fact exploding rockets due to a fail are quite uncommon. along with being uncommon, during rocket tests you don't necessarily need to have anything explode-able or a payload loaded in the rocket

Edited December 21, 2009 by Zolar V

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Rocket fuel doesn't burn for an extended period of time.

 

However, if this were just after sunset, the rocket fuel may be high enough in the atmosphere to be lit up by sunlight. What time did this happen and what time was sunset?

[DJBruce]

Rocket fuel doesn't burn for an extended period of time.

 

However, if this were just after sunset, the rocket fuel may be high enough in the atmosphere to be lit up by sunlight. What time did this happen and what time was sunset?

 

According to one report the shapes and gas trail was visible from 6:45 am to 7:00 am, while another source sites the incident occurring around 8:00 am. Since the sunrise in Oslo on December 9, 2009 was 9:06 am it might be possible that sunlight from the rising sun lit up the gases.

[StringJunky]

According to one report the shapes and gas trail was visible from 6:45 am to 7:00 am, while another source sites the incident occurring around 8:00 am. Since the sunrise in Oslo on December 9, 2009 was 9:06 am it might be possible that sunlight from the rising sun lit up the gases.

 

In that article I linked to, it was said the spiral was an effect of the sun on the leaking fuel:

 

Researcher at the Tromsø Geophysical Observatory Truls Lynne Hansen is certain that the light was caused by a missile launch:

 

- The missile has probably come out of control and exploded. The peculiar spiral shaped light pattern comes from reflection of the sun in the leaking fuel, he said to Aftenposten.

 

Don't forget also, the lens, sensor, and shutter speed used will influence the final image as well...there might be some flaring of the light in the lens assembly if the sun is in the frame.

 

If the shutter speed was slow enough and the object was spinning fast

enough there will be an after trail effect on the sensor creating this seemingly perfect spiral.

 

Basically, some of the 'information' you are seeing in the pictures may well be artefacts (read: limitations) of the camera system.

[Zolar V]

i was just reading your link, i think that my initial hypothesis on the images, that being the burning fuel are only partly right. the burning fuel does explain its dissipation, but the sunlight reflection seems much more plausible for the undissipated fuels.

of course it goes without saying that this is all speculation due to the unknown of what type of chemicals were present in the fuel, and its burn rate.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Zolar V

[CaptainPanic]

In that article I linked to, it was said the spiral was an effect of the sun on the leaking fuel:

 

Researcher at the Tromsø Geophysical Observatory Truls Lynne Hansen is certain that the light was caused by a missile launch:

 

- The missile has probably come out of control and exploded. The peculiar spiral shaped light pattern comes from reflection of the sun in the leaking fuel, he said to Aftenposten.

Sunlight reflecting off the undissipated fuels or exhaust gases?

 

Since when is sunlight blue-ish? It may be a different material than clouds, it may be a different altitude, but I surely would expect sunlight reflections to be at least somewhat like, well, sunlight reflections.

 

And more importantly - if it is true that under certain conditions it is possible to create spiral shaped stuff in the sky, then why don't we see it more often?

Don't forget also, the lens, sensor, and shutter speed used will influence the final image as well...there might be some flaring of the light in the lens assembly if the sun is in the frame.

 

If the shutter speed was slow enough and the object was spinning fast

enough there will be an after trail effect on the sensor creating this seemingly perfect spiral.

 

Basically, some of the 'information' you are seeing in the pictures may well be artefacts (read: limitations) of the camera system.

 

Several pictures were taken with different cameras. This means that shutter speed and all other parameters are irrelevant.

 

It's not like I really want the ionosphere idea I posted earlier to be true. It's just that I have seen missile failures before, and this is nothing like it.

 

I am wondering why everybody is so eager to accept such an unlikely explanation of the phenomenon.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Sunlight reflecting off the undissipated fuels or exhaust gases?

 

Since when is sunlight blue-ish? It may be a different material than clouds, it may be a different altitude, but I surely would expect sunlight reflections to be at least somewhat like, well, sunlight reflections.

Perhaps the fuels are blueish?

[StringJunky]

Here's a video:

 

[CaptainPanic]

thanks for the video.

 

You can tell me all you want... and I am not necessarily saying that some obscure organisation is beaming up Scotty into the ionosphere...

 

But that's no rocket. I just think that "rocket" or "rocket failure" is a very poor description of what I see there... I am not sure what it is.