UFO event in Norway

[barracuda]

please someone explain to me how a failed rocket could make that perfect, white spiral. The explanation, if it were only the blue spiral, is obvious. But the white one retains a very bright center for a long period of time. Not to mention, of course, the sudden "burn out " seen at the end of one of the videos - the whole white spiral seems to implode into blackness.

I would think that the more concentrated or closer to the source the ejectile particulate is, the more sunlight it reflects, and more brightly lit it becomes.

[brainpanhandler]

They could have found video and photo of old rocket malfunctions.

smiles did. I looked at them. They also informed my thoughts. As did reading the information at the links jingofever posted.

Phil Plait says it is probably a spiraling rocket. This guy also says it is probably a rocket.

Let me reiterate since you don't seem to understand this:

It is a graphic depiction of the most plausible theory (sigh, imo if you need that) I've heard so far. Nothing more.

But it's believalbe, because, whoa, someone posted it to a major website.

That had absolutely no bearing on my thoughts. i was unaware of it until you mentioned it.

[Searcher08]

What music comes to mind when you look at the pictures?

For me, it isnt anything soothing but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGbFBpP2sL0

which goes rather scarily well

[brainpanhandler]

I thought it was the rocket because rockets go into spins (other things that spin through the air: rifle rounds, footballs)--

And furthermore, this was your reasoning?

[Wombaticus Rex]

Thanks, brainpanhandler, for laying that out. I grok now. Processing...it's awesome to think of light spherically like that, but it is making sense to me now.

[brainpanhandler]

Thanks, brainpanhandler, for laying that out. I grok now. Processing...it's awesome to think of light spherically like that, but it is making sense to me now.

You're welcome. I was a little confused there myself. That's what my edit was about. I mean the light on the horizon could be from a large city. That's possible. Although I think that would have to be one hell of a large city, but I don't really know.


I don't know really how far the sun is beneath the horizon either, but apparently it never actually rises above the horizon at that latitude this time of year.

I know. We could call the Russians. Maybe they would tell us at what altitude the rocket began spinning out of control. And hey, we could create a computer animation that would show the position of the sun relative to that latititude on that day and at that time and the altitude of the rocket and then it might be a little easier to visualize.

[anothershamus]

please someone explain to me how a failed rocket could make that perfect, white spiral. The explanation, if it were only the blue spiral, is obvious. But the white one retains a very bright center for a long period of time. Not to mention, of course, the sudden "burn out " seen at the end of one of the videos - the whole white spiral seems to implode into blackness.

I would think that the more concentrated or closer to the source the ejectile particulate is, the more sunlight it reflects, and more brightly lit it becomes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1234430/Mystery-spiralblue-lightdisplayhoversNorway.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0ZCOomAQa


if you watch the youtube on the times site above it lasts for a while and the spiral isn't quite right for a missile.

Here's one that shows a different view. The reports said 8 minutes! that is a long time to have a missile go off track. Even Columbia only took 2-4 minutes. And there seems to be a projection from the ground.

I think we brought back Howard the Duck!

Or one of the Overlords of the Universe!

[barracuda]

It is strange that in every single picture, the plane of the spiral disk seems to be directly perpendicular to the line of sight of the photographer.

[justdrew]

It is strange that in every single picture, the plane of the spiral disk seems to be directly perpendicular to the line of sight of the photographer.

that may be because it's spherical

if not, seems like they're all taken from around the same town, so it may just be that all the shots are taken from nearly the same spot, relative to it's distance. and about the distance... how huge does that disk need to be I wonder? It's visible to halfway down Norway... over an area of a couple hundred miles. There should be pictures from northern Sweden and Finland as well, yet we've heard nothing about that.

[Nordic]

What gives me pause is that blue color from the middle section, the part that is obviously another spiral of something being squirted out of whatever the hell it was.

Fluid sprayed into the sky and backlit by the sun is going to come out looking white. But that blue? It honestly seems to be glowing of its own accord, and I have to say the only thing I've seen do that in my life is when I was a teenager and I visited a nuclear reactor at the University of Missouri, and we looked deep down into the water and could see the glowing blue far below. It was radioactive and it was that same color of blue.

I really love Norway -- I've actually been there and it's stunningly beautiful -- but I'm not sure I'd want to be downwind of whatever the fuck that was/is.

[justdrew]

What gives me pause is that blue color from the middle section, the part that is obviously another spiral of something being squirted out of whatever the hell it was.

Fluid sprayed into the sky and backlit by the sun is going to come out looking white. But that blue? It honestly seems to be glowing of its own accord, and I have to say the only thing I've seen do that in my life is when I was a teenager and I visited a nuclear reactor at the University of Missouri, and we looked deep down into the water and could see the glowing blue far below. It was radioactive and it was that same color of blue.

I really love Norway -- I've actually been there and it's stunningly beautiful -- but I'm not sure I'd want to be downwind of whatever the fuck that was/is.

a possible problem with all this fluid squirting:
the Bulava missile seems to be solid fueled... maybe just the third stage is liquid? is it in-flight maneuvering system fuel? One of the goals of this missile design is to defeat any anti-missile system in part by be being maneuverable... So is this event actually not a failure at all, but a way of sending a message... "look just how maneuverable this is!"

The Bulava design is based on the Topol M, but is both lighter and more sophisticated. The two missiles are expected to have comparable ranges, and similar CEP and warhead configurations.

The Russian military developed Bulava to possess advanced defense capabilities making it nearly impervious to existing and future missile-defense systems. Among its claimed abilities are evasive maneuvering, mid-course countermeasures and decoys and a warhead fully shielded against both physical and Electromagnetic pulse damage. The Bulava is designed to be capable of surviving a nuclear blast at a minimum distance of 500 meters.[3] Prime minister Putin has claimed that Bulava could penetrate any potential anti-missile defence system.

The Bulava is able to carry up to 6-10 MIRV warheads with a yield of 100-150 kT each.[2] A full-capacity payload requires the forfeiture of all final stage countermeasures and of some shielding.

and the Russians are now saying it failed in the third stage, so... that's got to be fairly high up...

new scientist says:

Just how would a missile be able to create such a perfect spiral? McDowell says the shape suggests the failure occurred well above the atmosphere. If it had occurred at lower altitudes, atmospheric drag would have caused the missile to fall quickly to Earth, creating a downward-pointing corkscrew pattern whose contrails would have been blown "this way and that" by wind, he told New Scientist.

The Bulava missile has three stages that fire in succession as it climbs up in altitude. "Probably what happened is that stages 1 and 2 did just fine and were discarded in turn, and then stage 3 started burning and almost immediately went wrong," McDowell says.

He says the third stage's nozzle, which directs the rocket's exhaust plume, may have fallen off or been punctured, causing the exhaust to come out sideways instead of out the back. "The sideways thrust sends the rocket into a spin, spewing flame as it goes," he says.

"If thrust was terminated right away, then you wouldn't see the spiral," he continues. "The unusual thing this time is that the missile was allowed to carry on firing for a bit after it went wrong."

[82_28]

Is this just "routine" missile testing (whatever the fuck that means)? And when a nationstate tests a missile, what is the point? And in this case, the day before Obama accepts the "peace prize".

In other words, was this purely an accident? The accident being the crazy illuminated spiral. Who could have known? Ya right.

I don't think so. Since when has any ICBM been fired accidentally/incidentally over Norway on the day of the presentations of the Nobels', before a strangely anti-peace/pro-peace leader of an empire that appears to be shaken to it's foundation? All the while, this missile creating one of the most "prosaically explained" shows of specter ever heard of or seen in the modern history of planet Earth.

A provocation? An announcement along the lines of America's moon shot and such during the early "space race"?

Personally, I am going to be keeping up on my Goro Adachi for awhile!

[stickdog99]

Yes, the computer simulation has convinced me beyond a doubt that the emperor has the most beautiful clothes!

(Either the photo isn't real or the explanation isn't real. This is a test.)

[brainpanhandler]

Yes, the computer simulation has convinced me beyond a doubt that the emperor has the most beautiful clothes!

(Either the photo isn't real or the explanation isn't real. This is a test.)

Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Like maybe nathan28's brilliant analysis?

I thought it was the rocket because rockets go into spins (other things that spin through the air: rifle rounds, footballs)--

I'm sure he's just busy elsewhere.

[brainpanhandler]

if you watch the youtube on the times site above it lasts for a while and the spiral isn't quite right for a missile.

I'm confused. Do you mean the Daily Mail?

There are two videos at the link you provided. The first one is interesting because it seems to address Barracuda's point:

It is strange that in every single picture, the plane of the spiral disk seems to be directly perpendicular to the line of sight of the photographer.

Unless I am mistaken it appears to me in that video that the spiral disk is slightly oblique relative to the positon of the camera. It also appears to me that I can discern an arcing trajectory in that first video. But that confuses me. Wouldn't any arc in the trajectory of the rocket distort the spiral?

Sure would be handy to see a computer simulation. That might help me visualize things.

There should be pictures from northern Sweden and Finland as well, yet we've heard nothing about that.

This is especially true if, as the McDowell at the New Scientist article you cited says, the rocket failed at high altitude:

McDowell says the shape suggests the failure occurred well above the atmosphere. If it had occurred at lower altitudes, atmospheric drag would have caused the missile to fall quickly to Earth, creating a downward-pointing corkscrew pattern whose contrails would have been blown "this way and that" by wind, he told New Scientist.

Now where the hell is Penguin when you need him?