This has been posted several times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx8i5EfmYU4&feature=player_embedded But I'm done with this. It doesn't matter what proof we have at this point, because conspiracy theorists will continue to believe it's a conspiracy regardless. That's the very nature of conspiracies, you can't argue against them when someone is so set on seeing something that isn't there.
well I'll play devils advocate and point out that rockets have self-destruct mechanisms that can be triggered from the ground and sometimes also a redundant onboard sensing system too...so the black hole growing from the inside is a shock wave from an explosion and the fact that you can't see something exploding way out there makes more sense then all the stuff that you can see... I was just reading about these and I thought the multiple warhead ICBM's like this always break away from the final stage during re-entry but this one they break up at what they call the third stage separation...it's not the second and third stages separating of course duh...anyway what happens is shortly after it enters space the individual re-entry vehicles separate one at a time and the third stage rocket fires to maneuver into position to cast them off and also to confuse any fire and forget missiles shot at it by you know who. So it probably just has little directional thrusters on the sides which fits perfectly with the two symmetrical fuel streams...theory.
Nice of you to pigeon hole anyone who disagrees with you into "conspiracy theorists". There is plenty of evidence that it isn't a missile (or as I said conventional missile), is it possible that a perfect storm of scenarios existed to have all these fantastical things occur to have a missile do this? Of course it is possible, does this make it fact? No, it certainly doesn't. Go ahead and believe whatever is told to you by those who have a vested interest in lying to you. You know the US Government says there is no base in a place called Area-51, it simply doesn't exist. Despite the fact satellite photos prove the contrary. Does saying A-51 exist doesn't make you a conspiracy nut (though most conspiracy nuts do believe in that), it means you have evaluated the evidence (the photos) and found it to be conclusively true that what the US gov says is a lie. Does this mean the government always lies? No, but it certainly means you can't take whatever is said at face value. What you are trying is this. A) All conspiracy theorist believe in A. B) If person believes in A, therefore they are a conspiracy theorist. FALSE Same as. A) All dogs have hair. B) President Obama has hair, therefore Obama is a dog. False
There is no evidence of this not being a missile, there are however theories from people who have watched low-resolution videos online. There is however evidence from several independent sources that this is a missile. So tell me, what part of this is not a conspiracy theory? I was just waiting for someone to bring in Area 51. Fan----tastic! I would rather spend my energy on explaining how this could happen to a missile instead of trying to prove it wasn't a missile. Because it was.
People need to learn that the whole world isn't out to get them. But I would say that wouldn't I. :infinity:
So because I am saying the all the evidence doesn't add up for it being a missile, that makes it a conspiracy theory? You are the one claiming conspiracies. It is nice to know you prefer to ridicule others rather than dispute facts (as there are plenty on any side of this). Yeah, and that isn't the scientific method. Scientific method you don't come to a conclusion and find facts to support it. You gather facts and then draw a conclusion from those facts. Some people here are actually doing the latter, though coming to a different conclusion than I. I have brought up questions that should and need to be answered, you have just ridicule others of believing this a grand conspiracy, or regurgitating that some people claim it is a missile, and they must "know" and they can't lie, so it must be the truth. Here is an image showing how much the white stuff obscured the night sky.
Well if it was a missile the truth is known that it is infact a missile. In scientific method, you create a hypothesis, then test it, then make a conclusion from the test whether or not the hypothesis is correct, wrong or needs adjusting, this is repeated.
Very possible, however it would be interesting if something like this would occur in say like South America, or some other place other than where Russia would be testing missiles. Even the 2nd video occurred in Russia (though I could not find out the exact location of the video capture). This makes it plausible that it could have been the Russians (whether or not it was a missile or the missile they claim), though doesn't outright confirm it. Should something like this happen elsewhere then that would put a pretty big damper the whole "Russian ICBM test".
Yeah but he said it is a missile and he wants to find out how it is a missile. Not I think it could be a missile so let's look at the evidence to see what would disprove it being a missile and what evidence could support it. He is already convinced it is a missile, he said so because the "scientists, researchers, and military/government" said so. That isn't the scientific method.
Yes. Going against the concluded mainstream explanation is just that. I've yet to see you post anything else than personal reflections on what could have happened based on some pictures and videos. That isn't evidence. How is it any different than saying it isn't a missle and then trying to find "evidence" that supports that notion? That's what you are doing. 1) The Russian military themselves say it's a missile. 2) The Norwegian military who no doubt followed this incidence on radar say it's a missile. 3) "experts" who saw it themselves (as well as through observatories) say it was a missile. 4) There was announced Russian military activity in the area where this launched from. A listening station picked up an announcement of a missile being fired during the correct timeframe. Claiming that all these points are lies, is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. I'm sorry if you feel offended by me calling you a conspiracy theorist, I don't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with being one. But yes, I'm certain it was a failed missile launch, but you're obviously perfectly allowed to think otherwise.
Are you, me or anyone else really in the position to carry out any scientific research on this? We don't have enough facts or information to work from. All we have are a few videos and pictures on the Internet... When in such a position, I usally tend to trust those who actually do have a something to base their conclusions on.
If you look back I even included the type of missile they claim it was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava And the sub they claimed it launched from, and it has launched a Bulava missile from the White Sea in the past (though several years ago) and last launch they did was a successful launch in Kamchatka (if you play Risk you know it's over by Alaska) where it hit a ground target. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFS_Dmitri_Donskoi_(TK-208) I also compared the time frame of the other video from Russia compared against the previous launch dates. (FYI the video was put on youtube Janurary 17th 2007 and the nearest launch date was Dec 24th 2006, though no locations for video or missile test, but there is 2 weeks+ between video placement on web and the test. Russia never claimed that video was a missile test). Very possible, then answer the question I asked in my first post. Why is Russia launching test missiles over foreign airspace, let alone over populated areas. Russia has access to many oceans and expansive space called Siberia to conduct such tests. Alright please provide links and documentation that shows they are an expert in the field. Interesting, however I would still like a link. I didn't ever (I checked through most my posts to double check) say "the government is lying" I said (paraphrase) "it is impossible to consider the government/military would lie when they have a vested interest to not tell the truth". Providing the simulation, doing the math, providing information adds to the information that we can draw conclusions from. You weren't providing anything other than "the gov/military says it's this...case closed". This is the first post I recall, at least in the past several pages where you actually provided some information that could be something that can be proven true or false (granted you provide some links to back it up).
Because for the sake of national pride Russia sees fit to continually show its capabilities. They have been testing British and other nations airspace for the last few years with their nuclear bombers. There was also the Alexander Litvinenko incident and their submarine movements. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6981541.stm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2093759.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6740628.ece Russia is very likely to be firing an ICBM now and then just to remind the world that they are still powerfull.
