Whats this over Norway?

[Tengu]

Well, Do you think the fake alien invasion plot would work?

Its too easy to disprove.

And would it unite everybody? I doubt it.

No ones going to fight someone whos too hi tech to fight...particularly not if they seem to be no threat anyway

 

[sapper1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx8i5EfmYU4

Here you are sapper1 this is precisely what I was talking about.

So it is possible it was a rocket which made those effects in the sky. Precisely those effects in fact.

Oh... and the Russians have now confirmed they fired a missile at about the right time. Oh... and there was a no fly warning issued for the white sea, commensurate with such a missile launch being in the offing.

Come on fellas... the game is up.

It was a missile.

Nice simulation (as in the title)almost as good as jurassic park.Just because you can simulate it doesn't make it real.

 

[Adze]

Not to mention that our governments can barely agree on what colour the wallpaper at a summit should be and where it should be held. Yet we're all expected to swallow the 'fact' that every major news source, government agency, tracking station etc. etc. worldwide is somehow covering something up as they're part of this NWO? Cobblers... big, fat, hairy, sweaty cobblers!

It was a missile. The Russians fired it. They've admitted it too.

Oi... sapper1... is this you?

Just because it's a simulation doesn't make it 'impossible' either.

It was a missile.

 

[locum76]

I wonder why there is only footage from one angle?

 

[Adze]

I wonder why there is only footage from one angle?

Because the White Sea is pretty much always East of Norway perhaps... that's where the missile was fired from. If you photographed the Western view... you'd miss it completely

EDIT: Tried hard to find a 'tongue in cheek' smiley for this one - but the only one I found didn't look much like a tongue in the cheek

 

[Tadpole]

Because there is a rational description that explains the multiple “impossible occurrences” to create an “imposable to be manmade phenomenon” surely it means that it is not impossible for it to be manmade? Not only that, it means by demonstrating, the necessary simple chain of events for it to be man made, and have the model display identical images to the ‘real event’ it means, given the available data, known physics, added to the mathematical modelling shown in the youtube, the evidence that we can all see, the event was clearly man made. Made by some kind of missile, destroying itself in high atmosphere.

 

[demographic]

Just goes to show how some people will hide behind rhetoric .Project blue beam isn't super secret.Do a search.

Done a quick search on *Project blue beam* and got taken to that shining example of scientific study, otherwise known as David Ikes site.

Errr

 

[HillBill]

The Russian Defense Ministry has confirmed the Russian Navy launched a Bulava ballistic missile on the same day, but has declined to make any connection with the lights seen over Norway

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/10/norway.ufo.light/index.html

The russian military dont say it was caused by a missile at all. Though they do say they launched a missile.

 

[Hoodoo]

Santa's doing a pre-op check.

Headlights..On!

This one makes the most sense to me. Seems obvious really.

 

[HillBill]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1994projector#a1994projector

1994: US Air Force Launches Top-Secret ‘Holographic Projector’ Research Program
The Airborne Holographic Projector [Source: Air University]According to a 1999 Washington Post website report, the US Air Force starts a research program this year to develop a “holographic projector” as a psychological warfare weapon. Holograms are three-dimensional images created by laser technology. The US military explored the idea of using holograms during the 1991 Gulf War to deceive the Iraqis, but did not pursue it for technical reasons. One idea was to project a hologram of Allah several hundred feet in size over Baghdad, but this would take a mirror in space more than a mile square, plus huge projectors and power sources

 

[HillBill]

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/neur-sci/1996-May/024104.html

INTERNATIONAL U.S. PRESS RELEASE
JUNE THE FIRST 1996,
TEXAS ALERT REPORT

(To be sent to all national mainstream
Media and to be put on all Internet locations).

Last minute information coming out from the Internatlonal Free Press
Agency in Canada from our Office in Texas exposes shocking facts about
the hidden NASA "TOP SECRET AGENDA" targeted towards world populations.
According to this Report, strictly based on "scientific material",
scientists of the NASA SPACE CENTER have been working for years on
"Global Terra 2000" which is about the preparation of what is known as
the "Blue Beam Project".

http://www.freepressinternational.com/2008/12/project-blue-beam-by-serge-monast-1994/

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/28418

 

[locum76]

Because the White Sea is pretty much always East of Norway perhaps... that's where the missile was fired from. If you photographed the Western view... you'd miss it completely

EDIT: Tried hard to find a 'tongue in cheek' smiley for this one - but the only one I found didn't look much like a tongue in the cheek

you know... what I mean!

It's a muckle big kerfuffle in the sky and should therefore have been visible from 360 degrees around it...

 

[sapper1]

Not to mention that our governments can barely agree on what colour the wallpaper at a summit should be and where it should be held. Yet we're all expected to swallow the 'fact' that every major news source, government agency, tracking station etc. etc. worldwide is somehow covering something up as they're part of this NWO? Cobblers... big, fat, hairy, sweaty cobblers!

It was a missile. The Russians fired it. They've admitted it too.

Oi... sapper1... is this you?

Just because it's a simulation doesn't make it 'impossible' either.

It was a missile.

You'll have to explain the handful of straws mate .

 

[HillBill]

If it was a missile, then it all wouldnt have dissapeared together, the trails it left first (the blue beam ) would have begun to dissipate soon after creation they would not have stayed in situ for 10 to 12 minutes then all vanish within a few seconds of each other. The big burst would still be there while the blue beam dissipated, only then would the big burst dissipate as that is the order they would have been created.

Yet in this pic the blue beam is strongest near ground level, and weakest near the big spiral which is backwards for it being a missile. It wasnt travelling away either or the big spiral would be on the horizon as opposed to in the air.

Physics dictates that the dissipation should be greatest at its furthest point as this was created first, but this is the opposite of what occured. NO MISSILE

Any expulsion of vapour/ liquid is always most concentrated at source like so

 

[Adze]

That neglects the probability that what caused the trails were made of different things - water vapour in the blue trail would hang around a LOT longer than LOX from a ruptured fuel line making up the white spiral.

 

[sapper1]

Why would a missile be carrying water?

 

[HillBill]

And why would all the blue beam dissapear together? as opposed to a gradual fade as would happen.

 

[Shewie]

How come the arc of the blue stream seems to flatten out and then expand ? Does that suggest a slowing down of something being propelled ?

 

[Glen]

Actually I'm not convinced that the blue light is dynamically spiralling, every still and video I've seen so far, which shows the apparent spiralling, the spirals seem to coincise with the rings of the white spiral, eg a cone shaped light that looks brighter at the points it intersects with the white spiral arms, causing an optical illusion of a blue spiral.
n which case it could be explained as a ordinary bluish coloured light tracking a spiralling missile.

Certainly I'm not convinced that's the explanation, hey I've only just read the thead and come up with the idea, all by myself I might add Bill One light one spiralling missle? maybe both sides are half right.

The other explaintion I can think of is a couple of BCUK members settling an argument about which would be the best torch to take to the Artic expedition

 

[HillBill]

How come the arc of the blue stream seems to flatten out and then expand ? Does that suggest a slowing down of something being propelled ?

Or a transmitted beam programmed to activate at a set distance or altitude.

If it was something being propelled then the flatten and expansion would be furthest away from the source of the propulsion. So that would mean the propelled object in this instance would be travelling away from camera over the horizon, not coming over the horizon towards the camera