Spiral Light Show over Norway

[Questioner]

What are the sources for this?

In all honesty, I just saw a spiral. In the jump from the assumption that it was a rocket to the assumption it was a craft from Sirius. I kinda got lost.

Let's talk about rockets, Ali.

I think it's inappropriate to call the rocket-failure concept an assumption.

Did you follow the links to the Youtube videos? One of them pretty clearly shows a computer simulation of how a failing rocket might make a somewhat similar looking sky event. Mainstream media reports usually include shots of that computer simulation, along with reports that the Russian defense ministry admits responsibility for a failed rocket launch.

A lot of people have put a lot of work into disseminating this concept. If it's not accurate, then it's way beyond an assumption into a pretty broad conspiracy involving the mainstream media (MSM), and public humiliation of the Russian military. I could believe that lazy journalists would copy each other. But I can't see why the Russian military would confess to not just this event, but a lousy failure rate of a key strategic system, unless they're trying to lure someone else into complacency.

I'm sure that those who claim to track all the different complicated branches of the Illuminati family tree could explain how the Rockefeller branch is manipulating the MSM to make the Rothschild branch the fall guy, or maybe it's the other way around. Or it's the Templar branch that's showing up the Masons or whatever. Or the Russian bear is the manipulator, pretending to snooze in order to lure someone into a trap - the Americans? The Chinese? NATO? Now those kinds of explanations really get me lost, and I'm glad they aren't the focus of this site!

In any event, for it to not be a rocket would involve a fair amount of cover-up and finger-pointing at significant risk of later exposure. If there was some kind of nonhuman, extraterrestial source of the event - whether spiritual or using advanced physics - that would certainly call for a defense ministry to try to minimize public awareness of their impotence to control the skies. If there was some kind of ET event, and the Russian brass knew about it, the failed rocket story would be a perfect cover-up. It would show that there's only one thing Russians have to fear in the sky. And that one thing to fear is that their rocket scientists don't have enough funding to complete their ultimate sky-dominating multiple reentry vehicle. By admitting failures that don't exist, they could get lots of funding to allegedly get things right. Again, we'd need some kind of conspiracy theory to explain why the missile crews would take the heat and keep the secrets if their rockets actually work better than reports.

As for the Russians, here's the TASS article: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html...&PageNum=0. According to this report, the rocket design has not been very successful so far. I'll include an excerpt:

Its range is 8,500 kilometers. The missile is capable of carrying up to ten supersonic maneuvering re-entry vehicles with the capability to change the course and altitude of flight.
Russia test-fired ten Bulavas in the period from 2003 to 2008. Five launches were unsuccessful, according to official reports.
During the test launch of the missile from the Dmitry Donskoi nuclear submarine on December 23, 2008, the missile self-destructed in the 28th second of the flight because of malfunctions in the operation of the third stage.
The "Borei" submarines with Bulava missiles are expected to make up the backbone of Russia's strategic nuclear forces until 2040-2045.

I'm not a rocket scientist, and maybe these things usually take years of trail and error. But a 50% failure rate isn't promising for the backbone of strategic national defense, is it? From the article, I take that as failure rate of getting the whole assembly up into the air, before the ten individual warheads separate.

If it was a rocket launch, it's at least an interesting timing coincidence for a complex new type of missile to be tested and very publicly fail. Interesting for this to happen the day before a major, well publicized speech pondering the possibility of an end to war. The time and place of the spectacular failure virtually guaranteed lots of publicity for the launch failure and the missile strategy.

Calling it an assumption that it was a rocket ignores the fact that a lot of people put a lot of work into promoting this explanation. You might have missed the news, or remain unconvinced. But it's far from an assumption.

"Hi honey, I'm home!"
"How was word today, Ivan dear?"
"We made the most perfect rocket launch, Natasha! Booster, three stages, then ten independent retargable warheads. You should have seen it! Just like a flower opening up to rain death on all our enemies for the glory of Mother Russia! Just then a UFO appeared promising world peace thanks to that meddler, Obama. But you have to not tell anyone or the security forces will kill us all. At this rate all us military rocket scientists will be out of a job soon! To save our budget the general said we have to pretend our rockets fail all the time so he can get more money for our project. Now I have to say that I'm a failure of a rocket scientist! If Russia ever gets peace how will a faked work history this bad let me get a job with the Americans or the Chinese? Maybe by then the Japanese and Swiss will have shut down their secret rocket programs and I'll never work again! Ah, get me some more vodka!"