Mystery Flash on Mauna Kea

[Chris Peterson]

Where is the second film. Please link

It was caught on three cameras, and all three videos are linked in this discussion.

We would get better answers here if people would read the entire discussion before posting their own ideas.

[owlice]

Where is the second film. Please link

Already linked within the thread; please read the entire thread to find it, and other evidence, too, which supports the missile's being the cause of this phenomenon. Thanks.

(Or, ya know, what Chris said. )

[Neapolitan]

The following video of an evening launch of a Minuteman from Vandenburg AFB clearly shows the perfectly symmetrical "bubble" expanding starting at around 1:41 as the third stage separated. This launch had the setting sun shining on it,of course, so the brightness of the sun on the entire smoke trail closed down the iris so much that that "bubble" wasn't picked up by the camera...but I believe you can use just a bit of imagination to see how such a bubble, properly backlit and imaged, could indeed create the phenomena seen in the Hawaiian webcam videos.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFKcMd8A ... re=related[/youtube]

[davindigo]

This is a shock wave electromagnetic controlled

[Magnum LL]

Though i am only 14, i feel that i can contribute reasonable information. My guess would be that it was a burst of natural gas being secreted from the volcano that got ignited by the magma's intense heat

[owlice]

Magnum, welcome to Asterisk! Why do you think that is a better explanation than the Minuteman missile?

[starmangaze]

I have reviewed this video many times and have used the adobe frame by frame software to certify this is legit on http://timelapsenow.com/movies/00/cloud ... _06_22.mp4.

I have also sent this video to my video forensics experty buddy and he says without a doubt it's 100% legit and is investigating the source further. This is amazing stuff.!!

[isoparix]

Now we have another one! See http://video.aol.com/video/bubble-cloud ... /919745346 All over the place!

[Kenny]

Hello everyone!
I found today the video from Hawaii, and made some analysis. I haven't read whole the discussion, so I have a question - have you noticed, the sphere had been aaccelerating? I mean, during 4 minutes, the center of the sphere accelerated by 50%, and the deflating velocity was twice the initial speed!!
If you need to look at the measurements, visit my blog (http://sisi.salon24.pl/344296,zagadkowa-eksplozja).
I think it proves it couldn't be missile, but rather very small accelerating particles... Maybe ionised hel or hydrogene? or antiparticles?

[neufer]

Hello everyone!

I found today the video from Hawaii, and made some analysis. I haven't read whole the discussion, so I have a question - have you noticed, the sphere had been aaccelerating? I mean, during 4 minutes, the center of the sphere accelerated by 50%, and the deflating velocity was twice the initial speed!!
If you need to look at the measurements, visit my blog (http://sisi.salon24.pl/344296,zagadkowa-eksplozja).
I think it proves it couldn't be missile, but rather very small accelerating particles... Maybe ionised hel or hydrogene? or antiparticles?

I'm guessing antiparticles.

[BMAONE23]

The perceived accelleration is likely an artifact due to "Fisheye" lens that was utilized in the camera. Have you ever noticed an Airplane approaching you from the horizon at night? You see it's bright white front lights that at first appear stationary. Then, as the aircraft approaches, they begin to move toward you slowly gaining speed. Once they are within range that you can see the red (port) and green (starboard) marker lights, the true speed becomes more apparent.
This is likely the same effect through the lens. While the plume is farther away, it appears to move slower but as the plume approaches you, it appears to speed up.
Also, as the Plume approaches, it is expanding as it is diluting in the atmosphere adding to the appearance of faster motion.

[Kenny]

I think you;re wrong. The 100% acceleration couldn'nt be just a question of lens. 10%, or maybe 20%. Second, notice that the sphere was like it was touching some point on earth, or the lowest point was sort of stable, and sphere was growin from that point - it means, that there was some earth repelling force.

[owlice]

I haven't read whole the discussion

Please do.

[Kenny]

Please do

So I did. As I was sure earlier I am sure now - that couldn't be rocket fuel. Notice the clouds visible on one of the movies - they moved significantly, and the air movement had no visible effect on the slowly growing bubble, which in addition has accelerated! I have 3 guesses now, from the less probable, they are:
3. Ionized gas - it explains the acceleration of the bubble, but doesn't explain no disturbances.
2. Complex gravitational/EM effect (no idea what kind of effect)
1. 4D effect ;]

[Chris Peterson]

So I did. As I was sure earlier I am sure now - that couldn't be rocket fuel.

I guess you didn't read the entire discussion, or if you did, not very well. Of course the clouds moved differently- they are in the lower atmosphere, and the expanding fuel plume is in the upper atmosphere.

You can guess all you want, but there is no doubt at all that we are seeing a rocket exhaust event.

[Kenny]

"You can guess all you want, but there is no doubt at all that we are seeing a rocket exhaust event."

Who is "we"? Cause you're obviously wrong.
The same wrong as I would say that we are seeing the snowy white and 7 dwarves.
But oh, you are Americans, you o'so smart

[Chris Peterson]

Who is "we"? Cause you're obviously wrong.

There is no doubt. None. "We" is everybody who understands this type of event, has looked at the evidence, and has seen things like it before.

[Guest]

Please do

So I did. As I was sure earlier I am sure now - that couldn't be rocket fuel. Notice the clouds visible on one of the movies - they moved significantly, and the air movement had no visible effect on the slowly growing bubble, which in addition has accelerated! I have 3 guesses now, from the less probable, they are:
3. Ionized gas - it explains the acceleration of the bubble, but doesn't explain no disturbances.
2. Complex gravitational/EM effect (no idea what kind of effect)
1. 4D effect ;]

Surely the 'bubble' isn't actually accelerating? Rather is just simply moving closer to the camera. As would be the effect of some sort of shockwave moving at high velocity. It's seems impossible to guage the speed of the object, however if the height was 700 miles above the surface then the object would be travelling at around 30,000 mph. Any lower (thereby slower) it is possible that were looking at a minuteman shockwave. (or any other high speed craft).

[no gazer]

eye witness reports are what i'd be asking for, a few of those would sure rule out lens glare from say an approaching vehicle or such...

[Pedro]

That halo would likely be from thrust termination of the third stage of the vehicle. Very high altitude, very rapid venting of the solid propellant motor may very well result in that appearance.

[frsauppe]

Back in the 1980's a scientist was experimenting on rocks under pressure in his lab. During the test he left the room and turned off the lights but when he returned, and before he turned the lights back on, he noted that there were sparks or lights emitting from the rocks. Again, all under tremendous pressure. I do wonder if this phenomena is what people see at night coming from the depths of the earth. Just a thought.

[popcicle]

I am curious if that ICBM was going MACH 5 and crashed into the ocean, what in the heck did it do to the ocean? Wouldn't the impact of that have been recorded somewhere as well? How much sea life would have been killed and over how large an area? How about being radioactive? I am certain there are numerous questions to still be asked and answered.

[geckzilla]

When an object falling from space enters Earth's atmosphere it begins to immediately decelerate and ablate, so it would not be going so fast by the time any large pieces reached the ocean. Any larger life forms would have to be spectacularly unlucky to have been hit by the pieces, just like humans so rarely are struck by any kind of meteorites or other space debris. The ocean is a large place and all the spacejunk combined pales in comparison to the awful amount of terrestrial garbage we've dropped in there.

[Chris Peterson]

I am curious if that ICBM was going MACH 5 and crashed into the ocean, what in the heck did it do to the ocean? Wouldn't the impact of that have been recorded somewhere as well? How much sea life would have been killed and over how large an area? How about being radioactive? I am certain there are numerous questions to still be asked and answered.

As Geck explains, this object would not be hypersonic, or even supersonic on impact. However, assuming it were still under power and hit the ocean at Mach 5, the impact would not be very damaging.

A typical ICBM masses around 35,000 kg. At Mach 5 (1700 m/s) the energy released at impact would not exceed 5e10 J, which is the equivalent of 12 tons of TNT. A one ton depth charge has a sub damage radius of about 15 meters; a 12 ton charge perhaps twice that. But that assumes exploding at depth. A surface explosion dissipates most of its energy upwards and only a small amount of energy travels through the water.

An explosion this size would certainly be detected by sub monitoring microphones, but not seismically. It would kill or stun fish for perhaps a hundred meters around the crash site. And that's about it.

At the actual speed it hit, however, it just splashed. It would have needed to literally land on a fish to kill it.

[neufer]

When an object falling from space enters Earth's atmosphere it begins to immediately decelerate and ablate, so it would not be going so fast by the time any large pieces reached the ocean. Any larger life forms would have to be spectacularly unlucky to have been hit by the pieces, just like humans so rarely are struck by any kind of meteorites or other space debris. The ocean is a large place and all the spacejunk combined pales in comparison to the awful amount of terrestrial garbage we've dropped in there.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

QUIMBY: (pointing skywards) Run!

Comet enters the atmosphere, breaking up.

MARGE: Look!!

LISA: It's breaking up!!

The comet breaks up more, until it becomes just a small rock. The rock makes a hole in Skinner's weather balloon, deflating it, then rebounds off Ned's bomb shelter, knocking it to the ground. Ned and Moe look on and gasp, while the comet bounces up the hillside. Bart picks it up.

BART: Cool!!

LISA: We're saved!!

MOE: Let's go burn down the observatory so this'll never happen again.!

LISA: I can't believe that extra-thick layer of pollution that I've picketed against is what burned up the comet.!

BART: But what's really amazing, is that this is exactly what Dad said would happen.

LISA: Yeah, Dad was right...

HOMER: I know, kids. I'm scared too!!