I've seen about 5-6 different angles of it from 2 different videos and 3-4 different pictures. It was also reported larger than the moon. If for some strange reason it was high altitude the speed of the spiral and rate of expansion of the black hole to be that large, well it would have to be ungodly fast. Momentum of the rocket would have also caused the gasses to continue forward, which they did not.
Perfect spirals from zero resistance. Upper atmosphere has low pressure, lower atmosphere would appear to be as cold and still as any morning. If you look in one of the pictures, there is water in a bay which is glass smooth, and steam rising from a vent of some kind with no wind resistance. Cold and still... And the different angles are just different angles. There isn't an object with a known size at and known distance, so you basically cannot assume size by eye unless you measure it with something.
The moon is a known object with a known distance, but still, the distance and size of the phenomenon are unknown.
Okay show me your math. Or did you just look at the photo's and decide "yup in my experience looking at low orbit ICBM exhaust patterns that is definitely not occurring in low orbit".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIg5eczY5Ms Additional video. How many missiles produce white light spirals in what appears to be front of the light source (not the blue contrail). If you look up in the sky right now, at night, you see the moon. With known distance and size in the sky. You don't need to be a scientist to observe whether another object appears to be larger or smaller to your eye. Not the actual size of the object, but how much space in the sky it takes up vs the moon. Witness reported it took up more space in the sky than the moon. The object would have to either be huge (at far distance/high altitude which also increases the speed of the object and it's expansion at the end) or smaller at lower altitude. There are many additional photos in the above video, based on witness reports, and the many camera angles there are two conclusions to be drawn. The further the object is supposed to be (such as high altitude as many suggest) would require the object to be very very large (far larger than jets, let alone missiles) or the object was closer to the ground which would reduce the needed size to fit the observed appeared size to the witnesses. All these different factors included, the only conclusion I can come up with it is not any missile in known existence, or plausible construction.
Look at this image, how much of the sky is taken up by the object. Edit* it is also reported the missiles was a RSM-56 Bulava missile (2 meter radius by 12 meters) I checked all their launch records and compared it to the other video and the only launch near Janurary 17th date was December 24th 2006, which failed 3rd stage. It was like all others fired from submarine, there is no reason it should have been traveling over populated land mass in Russia.
The moon is a tad over 230,000 miles away, low earth orbit starts at around 100 miles or 160km. Assuming the apparent size of an object is linearly proportional to its distance from an observer a disc shaped exhaust pattern one mile in diameter would appear the same size as the moon at what distance from the earth? Size of the moon == 2300 miles Size of object == 1 mile Distance to moon approx 238,000 miles Distance to low orbit 100 miles 238,000 / 100 = 2,380 lets call this relative magnitude 2300 / 2380 < 1 At 100 miles a 1 mile wide gas cloud should appear bigger than the size of the moon. IMO a gaseous dispersion from a velocity of a thousand mph in a near vacuum would easily reach a mile wide in size most likely several dozen miles. ETA:that pic shows a very very high altitude, note that the cloud is symmetric and reaches below the horizon.
Granted, however that image appears to be taken from higher altitude (on land) than this image which shows full image of spiral white stuff (which moved with light/object). Should that had been in high atmosphere (showed by cloud reaching below horizon) it showed no low ended dispersion from high altitude air currents such as jet stream. All this from an object that is 12 meters by 4 meters?
Very good, Dustpuppy, but the problem with using the moon as a reference is we as Earth bound humans have no concept of distances and objects of that size, so our perception would be skewed or misjudged. We know what a foot, a meter, a mile is. We have walked them many times. But not many, if any, people would be able to conceptualise a quarter of a million miles. @Cyber: That was the exact reference I was looking for!
^^ Hey, hey don't make fun of us. Teh Internets iz a serious business remember - and this is a very serious discussion.........:bounce::toke::boozer::bonk:
I don't personally think that. The conspiracy theorist in me says that somebody got afraid of ABM technologies and tried to design a rocket for evasion. ie I blame this on Bush Having said that, we could easily be talking about liquid fuel here. 48m^3 of liquid rocket fuel at near zero pressure heating up, while moving at the speed of an ICBM? I would not discount a dispersion field of this magnitude without crunching the numbers.
Ever heard of Occam's razor? It basically states that the simplest theory/answer is usually the correct one.
I can make a fist and look at my fist in the sky. Let's say from my perspective it appears the same size as the moon. Obviously it isn't as large as the moon, but at this short distance it appears as such. Such as with your math, for an object to take up that much size in the night sky either means it is close (closer objects seem bigger) or far away but very very large. You aren't disputing this conclusion are you?
Ever heard of a lie? It easier to accept a simpler lie than a complex lie. Of course the governments don't lie! Occam's razor states it is simpler to believe the governments tell the truth. "For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - HL Mencken
