Possible failed rocket launch seen from Norway

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alx09

Guest
Re: Giant Mysterious Spiral Takes Over the Skies of Norway

MeteorWayne":1owbdtbv said:
I am moving it now.
What I don't understand is why it is too bad it has an explanation.

Well I am just kind of waiting for a thing that the officials can't possibly claim is, for example, a weather balloon, as I believe there is ongoing extraterrestrial life on and around earth. (tether incident etc)
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
Re: Giant Mysterious Spiral Takes Over the Skies of Norway

Alx09":12sl8vl3 said:
Well I am just kind of waiting for a thing that the officials can't possibly claim is, for example, a weather balloon, as I believe there is ongoing extraterrestrial life on and around earth. (tether incident etc)

Probably I should have kept my mouth shut, but...

Unexplained = you can let your imagination to fly

Eventually all these things are explained, but the question is do you believe the explanation? Usually persons who are expecting aliens & stuff don't know very much about the stuff they are quoting on and commenting on. I personally believe that there is life somewhere out there, but based on the nature laws this is a universe which tries to separate everything. To travel such vast distancies fast enough you would need unimaginable amounts of power which is not an easy problem to solve no matter how advanced they are. That's why I'm not expecting any extraterrestials to show up and I need very strong evidence to even think they might be nearby here.

So these kinds on phenomenons like Norway's case are just interesting events which will have natural and sensible explanation after they are studied properly. Sometimes studying will take plenty of time and sometimes it happens rather fast. But there will always be people which are relying their imagination and conspiracy theories more than proper science since that is much more easier and probably more fun way to spend their time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End then back to the topic, here is a link to SDC's article: http://www.space.com/news/091210-norway ... cloud.html
 
W

weeman

Guest
It's quite impressive how it made such perfect spirals! Very Milky Way-ish on the artistry :mrgreen:

The Russians should just be saying: "We meant to do that. We're practicing for New Years."
 
S

StrandedonEarthsince1970

Guest
It may have been a new projection system getting the bugs worked out. They finally got it working...

1260365167000_lysf16_2952303510x510r.jpg
 
A

Alx09

Guest
An interesting post related to this:

Five days ago, an unprecedented atmospheric anomaly was observed in the skies above Norway. Initial reports as to the cause were varied but eventually mainstream opinion appeared to favour the Russian malfunctioning missile scenario.

Initially disavowing any knowledge of the cause of the effect, Russia eventually accepted responsibility and admitted that the spiral effect was a direct result of the malfunction.

On the surface, this seems to have satisfied the majority of people and already this marvelous event is fading into memory.

But for those who aren't satisfied with such glib and superfluous "explanations" and prefer to dig deeper, I offer the following alternative scenario ...

Let's do a simple analysis to see if the "malfunctioning missile" scenario can possibly be debunked ....

Looking at the following image, the nominal path of the Bulava missile when launched from the White Sea area would have placed it almost immediately on a north-east trajectory, following a great circle route to it's intended impact point in the Kamchatka penninsula, approximately 5,500 kms distant.

And yet for the missile to be so clearly visible in the Norwegian sky, implies that the missiles guidance system must have almost immediately failed and changed it's path to a north-westerly direction, almost a 90 degree shift in direction ... and headed instead towards Norway !
e2768db2f6bd.jpg


Based on the following image, it is clear that if the spiral was the result of a failed missile test and was visible from Norway, then it should also have been clearly visible from both and Finland which both would have been within the missiles flight trajectory - yet corroborating eye witness reports from either of these countries is almost non-existent. Virtually every report and image originates from Norway alone, implying that the spiral display (irrespective of the source) must have occurred at a very low altitude if only visible from Norway.
d30f661d48e2.jpg


Now lets determine whether I'm justified in stating that the spiral display occured at a very low altitude which is not commensurate with the proposed mainstream conclusion that it was the result of a failed Russian Bulava missile test.

Firstly, lets take a look at the Bulava's specifications:
178a40aed8fa.jpg

Not mentioned is that the Bulava has an apogee of 1,000 kms which is achieved after the successful burn of all 3 stages.

We are now being told that this particular Bulava test failed because of problems associated with the third stage burn. Now this implies that until the 3rd stage problems, that the 1st and 2nd stages completed their burns nominally which should have lifted the Bulava to an altitude of at least 500 kms.

But here we have a major stumbling block in our acceptance that the spiral was a direct result of the missile failure.
If the spiral was mainly observed only from Norway, that implies that the missile was already off course shortly after launching and heading in a radically wrong direction and would cross at least 3 sovereign countries of Finland, Sweden and Norway. It also implies that the missile never reached any appreciable altitude otherwise the spiral effect would have been visible over a vast geographical area and not just Norway. The immediate question to be asked is why the missile was allowed to complete a 1st and 2nd stage burn and not terminated immediately a deviation was noticed ... with the potential horrendous political repercussions should it come down in one of those 3 countries, especially Norway !

It's common knowledge that all previous Bulava tests that had inflight malfunctions were immediately terminated ... and yet this one doesn't appear to have been. So why have Norway, Sweden and Finland remained completely silent on the entire matter instead of raising a political #-storm over Russia test firing flawed missiles through their air space ?

Now lets take a look at whats been stated to be proof of a Russian missile launch on that day... namely the visible exhaust trail. In the following images, you can clearly see on the horizon what appears to be an exhaust trail and has been taken as evidence of a missile launch... in this case the launch of a Bulava missile on 9 December.

159703980bc9.jpg


Now take a look at the following image that illustrates the "distance to the horizon" calculation.
3411ec7b680f.jpg

For someone of average height standing at sea level, the distance to the horizon is approximately 5 kms.

Let's use the above calculation and rearrange it so that instead of determining the distance to the horizon, we use it instead to calculate the height.

Now, the distance from Tromso, Norway to the White Sea is approximately 800 kms. Plugging this value into the rearranged equation tells us that to be able to see the "exhaust plume" created at the White Sea from a distance of 800 kms, that the height of the plume will need to extend an incredible 40 kms into the upper atmosphere. If that wasn't bad enough, to be able to visually see that plume, it would imply that the exhaust plume had a width
in excess of 10 kilometres!

A height of 40 kms and a width greater than 10 kms ... all from the launch of a single missile ... thats equivalent to the exhaust plume from a shuttle launched in Cape Canaveral being seen 800 kms away in North Carolina ... somehow I don't think so!

So, as has been shown, it doesn't take much analysis to arrive at the conclusion that whatever was responsible for the spiral effect above Norway, it could NOT have been the result of a failed Russian missile test ending in a spectacular fashion in the airspace above Norway.

Well, if a missile test could NOT have been responsible for the spiral display in the sky, what other options or possibilities would make more logical sense ?

The images from Tromso show the "exhaust plume" clearly as extending skywards from behind a range of hills. The width and clearly visible details of the plume give all appearances of the originating cause being reasonably close by ... and not originating 800 kms away. other images also show the spiral being linked to the "exhaust plume" by way of a blue glowing region.

Ok, lets return to that so-called "exhaust plume" visible on the horizon and rework a few simple calculations.

If we make the reasonable assumption (based on visible structure and details of the exhaust) that in fact, the origin of the exhaust is approximately at a distance commensurate with the horizon (or perhaps just over), then the horizon calculations give us a distance from Tromso to the exhaust plume location of approximately 5 - 15 kms.

Therefore, the origin of the exhaust and blue beam effect apparently is somewhere between the low hills and the easterly horizon.
5187973d198e.jpg

cae13db441b9.jpg


Now, keeping the above images and the direction of sunrise, in mind ...

This image shows the view from Tronso Havn on the morning of 9 December at approx. 7:50 am. It is oriented to match the direction of sunrise as in the previous 2 images.

Note the 2 points indicated as (A) and (B).
8daf39c7a7b3.jpg


The next image is the same as the image above but in daylight and at higher altitude. It shows Tronso and Tronso Havn.

Location (A) is on the waters edge as in the 2 actual photosshown just above.
70d00f0e2ca2.jpg


This image shows what the mysterious location (B) represents ... no other than the (in)famous EISCAT system located at Ramfjordmoen (near Tromso) which functions as an ionospheric heater facility... similar to HAARP.
ef6e655822e3.jpg


So what we're seeing in the following photo is NOT an atmospheric effect created by a malfunctioning Russian ballistic missile but rather an atmospheric effect that I believe to originate with EISCAT.

5187973d198e.jpg


In other words, Russia was NOT responsible for the spiral effect ... the responsible party was actually NORWAY !!!

So in summary, I hope that i have put forward a reasonable case to show that the prevalent Russian failed missile scenario could NOT possibly have generated the observed spiral effect. I have shown that the alleged exhaust plume attributed to the missile launch could NOT possibly be seen 800 kms away in Tromso, Norway. I have shown that the spiral effect was in all actuality a very low altitude atmospheric phenomenon and attributing it to a malfunctioning missile
crossing Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian airspace is extremely implausible. I have shown that the exhaust plume rather than being located 800kms distant, was most likely less than 20 kms from the majority of the reported
sighting.

I have shown that an alternative, and more likely, candidate is in fact the EISCAT ionospheric facility located approximately 15kms from the photos taken at Tromso Havn and fits in extremely well with the visual evidence. <

This would also explain the uncharacteristic silence from the Norwegian government regarding the encroachment of their sovereign territory and airspace by a malfunctioning Russian missile.

Except for one detail, everything seems to fall into place reasonably well as an explanation of how the events of 9 December transpired.

The one remaining detail that is unclear is why the Russian government would accept blame and take responsibility for the spiral effect that they couldn't possibly have caused ... but irrespective, I'm sure that there IS a reason !!
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
I'm pretty sure that EISCAT radar cannot cause the effect that were seen. All the visual evidence points to a missile, including the end "hole" like effect.

Those arguments about the launch site are actually very interesting since that phenomenon were not reported here in finland. Maybe the launch site is somewhere in Antarctic Ocean near Tromsö.... Which also might be why Russians were so silent about the launch. This would also mean it was first stage failure, not third stage... But it was a missile failure as far as I can see.

Maybe we have some real expert comment about this claim as well?
 
A

Alx09

Guest
I live in Sweden, and no one saw it here either. Only Norway.

Our media is barely even reporting on it, which is strange.
 
V

vattas

Guest
Zipi":3swa3sdg said:
This would also mean it was first stage failure, not third stage...
But isn't that obvious from the blue spiral? "Normal" launches do not create spiraling column of exhaust, and here we can see it spiraling all the way from the ground (unless it's some kind of unbelievable technique to evade boost-phase intercept). Also the level of detail captured on amateur cameras suggest that vehicle wasn't very high when it went completely out of control.
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
vattas":2dzbsux4 said:
Zipi":2dzbsux4 said:
This would also mean it was first stage failure, not third stage...
But isn't that obvious from the blue spiral? "Normal" launches do not create spiraling column of exhaust, and here we can see it spiraling all the way from the ground (unless it's some kind of unbelievable technique to evade boost-phase intercept). Also the level of detail captured on amateur cameras suggest that vehicle wasn't very high when it went completely out of control.

Well... If you look this picture it is not very obvious that it is first stage failure:

159703980bc9.jpg


I found it very difficult to predict the height/altitude from pictures... Above picture shows that is has been travelled a quite long distance until failure. But winds can stretch / disorder the plume very very fast...
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Zipi":3j16vetu said:
I'm pretty sure that EISCAT radar cannot cause the effect that were seen. All the visual evidence points to a missile, including the end "hole" like effect.

Those arguments about the launch site are actually very interesting since that phenomenon were not reported here in finland. Maybe the launch site is somewhere in Antarctic Ocean near Tromsö.... Which also might be why Russians were so silent about the launch. This would also mean it was first stage failure, not third stage... But it was a missile failure as far as I can see.

Maybe we have some real expert comment about this claim as well?

Given that it was fired from a submarine, it could technically have launched from anywhere. And I think it's reasonable to suspect that some of the information about the failure is not correct. Though this launch was not publicized in advance (for reasons of national security, no doubt), high-up political personnages would've known about it. Bulava has not had a very good record so far; this was the 7th failure out of 12 launch attempts (that we know about). There is a whole submarine class hinging on the success of this vehicle; if Bulava has to be retired because it is too unreliable, it will spell the end for those expensive nuclear-powered submarines as well, which would be a serious problem for the Russian Navy. The political pressure is so high that reportedly senior management of the Bulava program has had some shakeups over the last failure. This failure will probably lead to some more job terminations as well. I can certainly imagine some folks within the program attempting to make it appear less of a failure than it actually was, by shifting the claimed launch site and claiming the failure was during the third stage. Yes, a lot of people would have to be in on it, so it would be risky. But the political bigwigs may not want to probe too deeply; they may knowingly accept the fiction so as to avoid a bad outcome for the Russian Navy. Heads will likely roll anyway, but if the facts have been fudged, perhaps it allows them to avoid accepting that the program has been a waste.

Just speculating, of course. It's also possible they're telling the truth; I don't know enough to say.
 
R

rfoshaug

Guest
Hmmm, there are several flaws in this theory, Alx09.


Alx09":32r9fgc6 said:
Based on the following image, it is clear that if the spiral was the result of a failed missile test and was visible from Norway, then it should also have been clearly visible from both and Finland which both would have been within the missiles flight trajectory - yet corroborating eye witness reports from either of these countries is almost non-existent. Virtually every report and image originates from Norway alone, implying that the spiral display (irrespective of the source) must have occurred at a very low altitude if only visible from Norway.

If it had happened at a very low altitude, it would not have been visible over the vast Norwegian areas that it was. Reports of sightings came in from Trøndelag, Nordland, Troms and Finnmark counties, in essence the entire northern half of Norway. For example, there are places in Sweden closer to Tromsø than some of the other Norwegian sites where it was observed. The explanation for why it was not observed in Sweden or Finland can't be low altitude.

Without really checking into this, my guess would be... weather?? Easternly winds tend to produce more clouds in the east (Sweden/Finland) and as those clouds drop their precipitation, the skies are clear in Norway. The opposite effect happens on westernly winds, when Norway gets grey weather. I haven't checked how the weather was in northern parts of Sweden and Finland on that day, but it might be an explanation.

Another possible explanation is that, as Sweden and Finland are farther east and this happened at 08:00 in the morning, Norwegian time (Sweden is also at CET while Finland is one timezone to the east), the sun might have been closer to the horizon in these areas and the phenomenon might not have been as visible.

In Norway, conditions were perfect. Clear skies, the sun well below the horizon, while the phenomenon happened high enough to be illuminated by the sun, producing a bright against a dark sky. Further east, the sky would not have been that dark.


Alx09":32r9fgc6 said:
Not mentioned is that the Bulava has an apogee of 1,000 kms which is achieved after the successful burn of all 3 stages.

We are now being told that this particular Bulava test failed because of problems associated with the third stage burn. Now this implies that until the 3rd stage problems, that the 1st and 2nd stages completed their burns nominally which should have lifted the Bulava to an altitude of at least 500 kms.

But here we have a major stumbling block in our acceptance that the spiral was a direct result of the missile failure.
If the spiral was mainly observed only from Norway, that implies that the missile was already off course shortly after launching and heading in a radically wrong direction and would cross at least 3 sovereign countries of Finland, Sweden and Norway. It also implies that the missile never reached any appreciable altitude otherwise the spiral effect would have been visible over a vast geographical area and not just Norway.

It was visible over a very large geographical area in Norway itself, which indicates that it actually DID happen at high altitude. Also, the fact that the spiral effect could spread out undisturbed indicates that the phenomenon happened outside our atmosphere, which reaches up to about 100 km altitude.

The missile did not have to veer of course on the first two stages to be visible, because of the high altitude.


Alx09":32r9fgc6 said:
The immediate question to be asked is why the missile was allowed to complete a 1st and 2nd stage burn and not terminated immediately a deviation was noticed ... with the potential horrendous political repercussions should it come down in one of those 3 countries, especially Norway !

It's common knowledge that all previous Bulava tests that had inflight malfunctions were immediately terminated ... and yet this one doesn't appear to have been. So why have Norway, Sweden and Finland remained completely silent on the entire matter instead of raising a political #-storm over Russia test firing flawed missiles through their air space ?

The Bulava never did enter the air space of any of these countries. The point you bring up about not raising a political #-storm indicates exactly this. If a Russian ballistic missile with nuclear-carrying capability had entered Norwegian (NATO) airspace, there would have been political hell to pay! And this also explains why the missile was allowed to continue. 1st and 2nd stage were normal. It was not deviating. Then the 3rd stage started to spin. Why wasn't it detonated then? Either because it didn't pose any risk to populated areas or other nations' airspace and controllers wished to gather as much data as possible, or maybe the destruct signal didn't reach the spinning rocket's antenna (similar in the way the Shuttle rolls to heads up attitude to allow communications via satellite during launch).


Alx09":32r9fgc6 said:
Now lets take a look at whats been stated to be proof of a Russian missile launch on that day... namely the visible exhaust trail. In the following images, you can clearly see on the horizon what appears to be an exhaust trail and has been taken as evidence of a missile launch... in this case the launch of a Bulava missile on 9 December.

Now take a look at the following image that illustrates the "distance to the horizon" calculation.
For someone of average height standing at sea level, the distance to the horizon is approximately 5 kms.

Let's use the above calculation and rearrange it so that instead of determining the distance to the horizon, we use it instead to calculate the height.

Now, the distance from Tromso, Norway to the White Sea is approximately 800 kms. Plugging this value into the rearranged equation tells us that to be able to see the "exhaust plume" created at the White Sea from a distance of 800 kms, that the height of the plume will need to extend an incredible 40 kms into the upper atmosphere. If that wasn't bad enough, to be able to visually see that plume, it would imply that the exhaust plume had a width
in excess of 10 kilometres!

A height of 40 kms and a width greater than 10 kms ... all from the launch of a single missile ... thats equivalent to the exhaust plume from a shuttle launched in Cape Canaveral being seen 800 kms away in North Carolina ... somehow I don't think so!

What is so incredible with a missile creating a 40 km high plume?? Airliners operate at 10-12 km. Concordes flew at 20km. Shouldn't a ballistic missile be able to pass through 40 km during first or second stage?

I'm not sure how you arrive at a width of 10 kilometers, as we obviously don't see the ENTIRE plume all the way down to the surface where it was launched (look at your own illustration - the earth's curvature means we only see the top few kilometers). If the plume extends to 50 kilometers altitude (i'd say probably more), we don't see all those 50 kilometers from Tromsø, only the top of it.

On the other hand, a 10 km plume width is not that incredible either. The part of the plume we see in the photos are in the upper atmosphere. Winds have smudged them out, and the low atmospheric presssure means that the plume spreads much much more when leaving the nozzle than it would at lower altitudes.


Alx09":32r9fgc6 said:
So, as has been shown, it doesn't take much analysis to arrive at the conclusion that whatever was responsible for the spiral effect above Norway, it could NOT have been the result of a failed Russian missile test ending in a spectacular fashion in the airspace above Norway.

I do not agree, but let's have a look at the explanation you provide.


Alx09":32r9fgc6 said:
Well, if a missile test could NOT have been responsible for the spiral display in the sky, what other options or possibilities would make more logical sense ?

The images from Tromso show the "exhaust plume" clearly as extending skywards from behind a range of hills. The width and clearly visible details of the plume give all appearances of the originating cause being reasonably close by ... and not originating 800 kms away. other images also show the spiral being linked to the "exhaust plume" by way of a blue glowing region.

How do you know if the "clearly visible detail" is small and close by or larger features that are far away?

The blue glow is strange indeed. It seems obvious that the Bulava expels matter in two directions - one along the path of flight (blue) and one perpendicular to this (white). The white one shows the rotation of the vehicle better, but also the blue one does spiral. Why does the Bulava expel matter in two directions and not just one nozzle? Either a malfunction with leaking propellant (it was a failed launch after all) or a stuck maneuvering thruster. According to the Bulava data sheet in your post (thanks for providing all the evidence against your claims by the way), the 3rd stage uses liquid propellant. Maybe the blue trail is exaust from the nozzle and the white is unignited propellant leaking out the side (and turning into frozen particles) of a spin stabilized missile? Maybe this is also why it wasn't terminated - because it was flying controlled as designed, but leaking propellant, causing an early engine shutdown?

Alx09":32r9fgc6 said:
Ok, lets return to that so-called "exhaust plume" visible on the horizon and rework a few simple calculations.

If we make the reasonable assumption (based on visible structure and details of the exhaust) that in fact, the origin of the exhaust is approximately at a distance commensurate with the horizon (or perhaps just over), then the horizon calculations give us a distance from Tromso to the exhaust plume location of approximately 5 - 15 kms.

When the numbers you now plug into your calculations are wrong, the result is wrong. If it had been at a distance from Tromsø of only 15 kilometers, people in Alta, Lødingen, airliners arriving at Bodø etc. would not have seen it.

Alx09":32r9fgc6 said:
Therefore, the origin of the exhaust and blue beam effect apparently is somewhere between the low hills and the easterly horizon.

Now, keeping the above images and the direction of sunrise, in mind ...

This image shows the view from Tronso Havn on the morning of 9 December at approx. 7:50 am. It is oriented to match the direction of sunrise as in the previous 2 images.

Note the 2 points indicated as (A) and (B).


The next image is the same as the image above but in daylight and at higher altitude. It shows Tronso and Tronso Havn.

Location (A) is on the waters edge as in the 2 actual photosshown just above.

This image shows what the mysterious location (B) represents ... no other than the (in)famous EISCAT system located at Ramfjordmoen (near Tromso) which functions as an ionospheric heater facility... similar to HAARP.

I do not know where points A and B came from in the first place. You show two images of the spiral. Then a computer generated image with points A and B. Don't really get it, sorry.

Alx09":32r9fgc6 said:
So what we're seeing in the following photo is NOT an atmospheric effect created by a malfunctioning Russian ballistic missile but rather an atmospheric effect that I believe to originate with EISCAT.

In other words, Russia was NOT responsible for the spiral effect ... the responsible party was actually NORWAY !!!

Why would Russia take the blame (and serious amounts of humiliation at the cost of the already plagued Bulava project) if it was a Norwegian radar that did it??? Why, oh why? Is this very likely?


Alx09":32r9fgc6 said:
So in summary, I hope that i have put forward a reasonable case to show that the prevalent Russian failed missile scenario could NOT possibly have generated the observed spiral effect. I have shown that the alleged exhaust plume attributed to the missile launch could NOT possibly be seen 800 kms away in Tromso, Norway. I have shown that the spiral effect was in all actuality a very low altitude atmospheric phenomenon and attributing it to a malfunctioning missile
crossing Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian airspace is extremely implausible.

You are right, it is extremely implausible that it would enter Norwegian, Finnish, or Swedish airspace. Because it didn't. It was much much higher up than you claim.

Alx09":32r9fgc6 said:
I have shown that the exhaust plume rather than being located 800kms distant, was most likely less than 20 kms from the majority of the reported
sighting.

I have shown that an alternative, and more likely, candidate is in fact the EISCAT ionospheric facility located approximately 15kms from the photos taken at Tromso Havn and fits in extremely well with the visual evidence. <

This would also explain the uncharacteristic silence from the Norwegian government regarding the encroachment of their sovereign territory and airspace by a malfunctioning Russian missile.

Except for one detail, everything seems to fall into place reasonably well as an explanation of how the events of 9 December transpired.

The one remaining detail that is unclear is why the Russian government would accept blame and take responsibility for the spiral effect that they couldn't possibly have caused ... but irrespective, I'm sure that there IS a reason !!

Good that you do acknowledge this fault in your theory. :) However, it is only one of many. It is good that people question the official explanations, one shouldn't accept something just because your government says it is so. But one should not refuse to accept something just because your government says it is so either.

In this case, I believe the missile theory is the most likely one. I sadly didn't get to see the phenomenon myself as I was getting the swine flu vaccine that morning (go ahead with new conspiracy theories on that one and how I'm now an always loyal zombie to my government because of it!). But the moment I saw the first videos of the event, I had no doubt that it was in fact a man-made space launch vehicle that created it.
 
A

Alx09

Guest
Nice points you make.

Just to clear one thing up: I quoted a person from another forum, I did not write all of that myself, nor did I create any images. I just found the post interesting and forwarded it here to see what others would think about it.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Alx09":3c460rq9 said:
Nice points you make.

Just to clear one thing up: I quoted a person from another forum, I did not write all of that myself, nor did I create any images. I just found the post interesting and forwarded it here to see what others would think about it.

You should have stated that up front, and provided a link to the source material. That's bad form, and not providing a link is borderline against the rules here.

MW
 
A

Alx09

Guest
MeteorWayne":255fl1o3 said:
Alx09":255fl1o3 said:
Nice points you make.

Just to clear one thing up: I quoted a person from another forum, I did not write all of that myself, nor did I create any images. I just found the post interesting and forwarded it here to see what others would think about it.

You should have stated that up front, and provided a link to the source material. That's bad form, and not providing a link is borderline against the rules here.

MW

Well I thought I made it pretty clear when I wrote this:

"An interesting post related to this:" - and then put all of the content inside a quote-box.

I didn't put the abovetopsecret source link in here because I thought everyone would be like: "Yea right, its from that conspiracy site, not even worth reading..."

Oh well. Lession learned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts