The Kecksburg UFO Crash: December 9th, 1965

reply to post by jkrog08

Yes i too recalled hearing witnesses describe that the trajectory was not a straight line.

As for the belief that meteors always travel in a straight line, they usually do but not always:


(Video of a falling object in Peru changing direction).

And a change in direction doesn't have to mean any violation of the laws of physics, momentum, or inertia. All it takes for a meteor to turn is for one side of the object to emit superheated hot gases at a greater velocity than the other side and the unequal force will change the trajectory away from a straight line.

If the meteor partially explodes it can even send pieces off in different directions, or it could send one small piece in one direction and just change the course of the larger piece. Directional changes of meteors may not be common, but they are not impossible and do not automatically infer intelligent control as some have suggested.

reply to post by jkrog08


I've already said this, but everyone missed it (lol):

The smoke trail shows a screw descend, consistant with a attempt to control descend and search for the less lethal crash landing. Any non-controled craft falls like a rock. This one didn't.

This happens when you have, for example, part of the wing missing. We don't use it on airliners, since they aren't very agile, but fighters and high-maneuvaribility crafts can use it.

Imagine that you can turn 10% to the left, but the craft (because of some type of damage) wants to go to the right by 110%. You can keep it steady for seconds, but not long... So what *in theory* you can do, is hold the horizon line, let it twist and when coming to the horizon line, hold it again...

If you time this correctly you can "land" with the belly of the craft on the ground.

Btw, I've have thought of it, but I don't think its the case: the trail being dissipated by wind. Visually, doesn't look like that.

reply to post by Tifozi


LOL, do not feel bad, sometimes posts get lost in ATS.

I must agree with you my friend...It certainly looks like the object was trying to control its crash. Now if that is some AI then it would be far more advanced than anything today--And I am pretty sure the Russians did not have that kind of tech, if they did than that would be a whole new conspiracy in and of itself! LOL, there are a few UFO cases that has alternate explanations that are nearly as big as a conspiracy as alien life!

Your knowledge is a valuable asset to ATS, I am glad you are a member my friend.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTION...Not only that but all of yours in this thread. You also are a VERY valuable member to the UFO board my friend. Keep up the great work!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I love when you teach me celestial stuff, didn't know about meteors on drugs. (jk)

In my opinion (and it's just that) a gas release or explosion from the meteor explain a fast turn or a weird movement, but correct if I'm wrong:

If the object is descending at a speed of X with all the gravity momentum, and some type of energy is released to the point it makes the object change direction, it lowers the momentum from the descend right?

If that happened to the object (assuming it's a meteor), how come it kept a flight path consistant with thrust from one side (making the screw effect) and from the backwards (keeping it moving forward) ?

According to a release of energy from the side, the object would make a perfect screw, like a gas canister blown off, not a straight-screw one.

(dunno if I explained myself correctly)

Maybe it's something that I don't understand, but I don't think it's a meteor.

[edit on 10/9/09 by Tifozi]

Thanks jkrog, and I agree Tifozi is a valuable contributor here on ATS too, but you still have contributed way more than me.
reply to post by Tifozi

Well let me try this thought experiment and see if it makes any sense.

Blow up a balloon, and then release it, what does it do? It goes around in random directions right?

Now blow it up again and tape it (or otherwise attach it) to a ball. Now throw the ball and release the balloon at the same time. What do you think happens? The balloon's direction is no longer completely random, the ball provides the momentum and the balloon tries to change it. Could you imagine some kind of corkscrew motion possibly resulting from that? That's sort of how I visualize a meteorite with hot gases escaping from it. Usually the pressure from the gases is uniform so it just follows a relatively straight trajectory. But let's say you get a rock with some water trapped inside. As it heats up, the water inside could boil, find a crack and shoot out in basically any direction. It doesn't have to be water, it could be other substances too. The steam or other gases would be like the air escaping from the balloon in my analogy.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I understand you, but I still don't think it would be enough. The descend looks too straight to be something like that.

In my opinion, it really looks like it had some type of propulsion, not only momentum.

If it was only falling, then after that type of gas release (thrust) would kill any other momentum, or at least weaken it.

you gotta notice how it's always a metoer, lol

oh look a flying pig, Nahh it's a meteor.!!!!

oh look it a plane, Nahhh It's a meteor.!!!

oh look a meteor, Nahhh it's a UFO ...!!!!!

come on what's the deal with knowing if there is life out there, this world greatest find but still gotta go throught the paper-work to disclose that info ...!!!

[edit on 11-9-2009 by dee-kay]

Another great thread, jkrog08!
Thanks!

I wonder how you get enough time to make all these great threads, don't you ever sleep?

Originally posted by Tifozi
If it was only falling, then after that type of gas release (thrust) would kill any other momentum, or at least weaken it.

Only if the gas release was pointing down.

An aerodynamically stable object falling without tumbling and with some gas exiting it horizontally would not affect it's descent; if it was exiting upwards it would accelerate the descent; if it was exiting downwards it would slow its descent.

And for the object to make a spiral I think that aerodynamics is enough.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So since this guy can't really say where Cosmos 96 came down, and he said it passed over PA that same day just at an earlier time, it seems to me we could accept he's telling the truth, that he's correct, and it could still be Cosmos 96 that they found in the woods.

I just want to be clear here Arby, I don't think you are quite grasping the orbital mechanics involved in an orbit decay....

Johnson has the data from the tracking of Cosmos 96, from the time it was launched until the time it went down. His analysis includes full tracking on the Russian probe.

It absolutely could not have been Cosmos 96.

-WFA

reply to post by Arbitrageur


My problem with the Meteor theory, Arby, is that it would have had to have been one heck of an expensive random metal that fell to Earth for all of these cover stories to be floated like this.

I mean seriously, NASA claimed it was Cosmos 96, when it CLEARLY wasn't. Debunkers (no offense Oberg, I just call them as I see them) still refer to Cosmos 96 to date as a likely canidate, when it clearly ISN'T.

It's been 40+ years and we're not allowed to know about a meteor?

I just don't buy it.

You don't classify random rocks that fall from the sky without any reason. Heck, often they don't even get recovered.

-WFA

p.s. Arby - you are totally right about how heat on a meteor would spin it on it's axis, and would affect it's trajectory. That being said, it would be far more likely for heat from the Sun to cause such an off-gassing up in space, than in Atmo, IMHO. I could be wrong, but from what I recall it's awful cold up in the upper reaches of Earth Atmo, and the Magnetosphere blocks a lot of the Sun's energy, and at that point the strongest force acting upon an object would be the Earth's Gravity well...



[edit on 11-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So since this guy can't really say where Cosmos 96 came down, and he said it passed over PA that same day just at an earlier time, it seems to me we could accept he's telling the truth, that he's correct, and it could still be Cosmos 96 that they found in the woods.

I just want to be clear here Arby, I don't think you are quite grasping the orbital mechanics involved in an orbit decay....

Johnson has the data from the tracking of Cosmos 96, from the time it was launched until the time it went down. His analysis includes full tracking on the Russian probe.

It absolutely could not have been Cosmos 96.

-WFA

My friend WFA, I'm using the source that YOU POSTED about the expert on orbital mechanics:

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
As for Cosmos 96, have you read this report:
www.freedomofinfo.org...

Maybe I should ask you the same question? Have YOU read it? Because here's what it says:

Johnson does not have information about the time of demise of Cosmos 96...

So what he is doing is providing times about where it would have been at what time that day had it been in the sky according to orbital mechanics. Maybe it did crash in Canada at 3:18 AM and he confirmed it was over Canada at that time. But he also said it would have been over PA at approximately 6:20 am had it still been in orbit. He only said it didn't crash in PA at 4:45PM and didn't rule out the possibility of it coming down in the morning, in fact officials say that it DID come down in the morning! So the only question is that of a few hours between 3:18am over Canada or 6:20am over PA, neither of which would violate orbital mechanics.

I'm not trying to prove it was Kosmos-96 they recovered, but only trying to say that it's not as impossible as some people are trying to suggest. But I'm open to the idea it may have been something else.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


But if it did come down in the morning, then what did the witnesses in Kecksburg see crash in the late afternoon? A meteor at that low of a altitude would not be coming down changing directions no more than 100 feet over head, it also does not explain the "flashing blue light", nor the acorn shaped object seen by many people. I just do not think that the people in Kecksburg were lying about what they saw to draw attention to the town(as some have said), that just sounds ridiculous IMO.

[edit on 9/11/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Sorry Arby, I just re-read my last post, and I came off a bit insulting.

I do feel that the orbital mechanics involved though are escaping your understanding, and I don't mean to be offensive by that.

What I meant about Johnson having the data was that he had enough to extrapolate. An object moving at a known speed at a known decay rate can very accurately be predicted.

We use these same calculations when plotting the course for our Mars landers. It's how NASA is able to pick target landing sites, and is able to calculate insertion angles in order to properly land the vehicle.

If an object is over Penn hours before, it's certainly not going to repeat that orbit hours later, especially while in a decaying orbit (won't be at the same altitude on the next pass, let alone long. and lat...) If it went down that early 2 questions would naturally emerge:

1) What went down in Canada, as predicted by the Cosmos Descent?
2) Why do witnesses report inconsistencies (time, physical description, entry trajectory, description of fireball & movements) with the Cosmos conclusion?

-WFA

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


OK I see the problem, you didn't read my other posts, that's ok.

This isn't my theory but as I understand it, Cosmos-96 comes down in the morning (either 3:18 in Canada or 6:20 in PA). Lets say officials would like to recover it to see what technology it has, that's plausible. No violation of orbital mechanics if either of those happens right? Now let's say that people's alarm clocks are going off at 6am so they're still making coffee at 6:20am and not looking outside and don't see Cosmos-96 crash in PA in the ravine.

Later that day, they see a meteor at 4:45 pm. Like most meteor sightings they think the meteor they sighted was way closer than it was. So people start looking for something that crashed, and lo and behold they find something that crashed earlier that day thinking it's the same object.

Again I'm not saying that's what happened, just that it's a theory that doesn't violate orbital mechanics.

Whether Cosmos-96 crashed in Canada or in PA I wouldn't be surprised if someone wanted to try to recover the wreckage to see if we could learn anything from it, if there was anything left to recover that is.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Oh yes, sorry. I did read that earlier post, but did not address it directly...

Let me do so. While your line of reasoning appears sound from the outset (or should I say the theory holder's line of reasoning...) it assumes that the whistleblower is in fact NASA, and that Johnson is attempting to perpetuate a conspiracy/cover-up.

I see a flaw in that logic. It is clear to me, having worked with whistleblowers in the past in my news days, that the system doesn't work that way, it's the other way around.

However I will admit your theory is possible, it still doesn't explain why the recovery of Cosmos 96 would not have been declassified by now, with supporting documentation and studies conducted on the systems. And it also doesn't explain how an impactor makes anything like the descent path described in the Kecksburg case.

When I add up all of the evidence here, there is a lot to contradict the Cosmos theory. A lot of solid science, that is repeatable and fully tested argues against Cosmos being the reported crash.

A lot of evidence argues against the meteor theory as well.

And no evidence has yet emerged to support the theory that Johnson is lying, nor any motivation for him to do so.

In light of all this, I find it very difficult to swallow the meteor theory (why recover and classify a meteor?) or the Cosmos 96 theory (since we know where it went down).

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Let me do so. While your line of reasoning appears sound from the outset (or should I say the theory holder's line of reasoning...) it assumes that the whistleblower is in fact NASA, and that Johnson is attempting to perpetuate a conspiracy/cover-up.

I see a flaw in that logic. It is clear to me, having worked with whistleblowers in the past in my news days, that the system doesn't work that way, it's the other way around.

I don't see why you think Johnson would be part of any cover up if that theory were true? He doesn't know when it came down, only that it could have been Canada at 3:18am or PA at 6:20am. He's not lying or covering anything up if it came down in either of those places at those times.

But I agree with most of the rest of your post, there are lots of mysteries about what happened and we have more questions than answers That's what makes this one of the more interesting cases to me.

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


You're right Arby, Johnson wouldn't have to be lying according to that theory, however the US Space Command would have had to have been lying:

"The US Space Command reported in 1991 that Cosmos 96 crashed in Canada at 3:18 a.m. Johnson does not have information about the time of demise of Cosmos 96, but he did confirm that it was over Canada at this time."

That's from the same report (Johnson's), and his calculations of the trajectory confirmed this conclusion, even though he had no direct evidence of the impact itself. That's enough to go on in the world of NASA, if manned mission recoveries in the ocean are any example, or the landers we've placed on other worlds...

If you really feel (or if anyone really feels) that the US Space Command was mistaken on this issue, they can be contacted for comment here:
(U) U.S. Space Command, USSPACECOM, Open Phone: (719) 554-6889.

Here's the source for that info:
www.fas.org...

-WFA

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


NOW you understand the theory!!! Great, it took some time but you got it!

And yes the implication would be that back in 1991 when the US space command reported that, that they could be covering up the fact that we actually recovered it, or so the theory goes, or they could have misinterpreted their data and been in error, I won't claim to have investigated that because I haven't. It's not even my theory so I have no desire to ask them a stupid question like "were you part of a coverup"? Who would answer yes to such a question? Nobody, so it makes no sense to even ask it. Some other questions to ask might be, didn't NASA claim that it was Kosmos-96 recovered at Kecksburg and if so why?

Remember, the event was only 26 years old in 1991 and Roswell showed us it can take 50 years to declassify secrets where we DIDN'T break any laws. And if we did recover it in violation of international law, then maybe 50 years is too soon to declassify a case where we DID break international law? I don't know, I'm just saying Roswell took 50 years and the 50 years on this case won't even be up until 2015 so it seems to me that a lot of people are making a lot of assumptions.

reply to post by ArMaP


No my friend, you are confusing paths with turning angles.


I'm sorry for my artistic values, but I'm doing my best to put my ideas out:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/975a38b797cb.jpg[/atsimg]

The red arrow shows the "generic" path of the UFO. It's there to show the descend.

The green arrow shows what would be the path if the object released some gas or energy from the bottom. It would gain some upwards momentum.

The yellow arrow shows the same as the green, but in this case if the energy (thrust) would come out from the top of the object. It would change its path into a smaller angle.

Note that this shows what would have happen with gravitational descend momentum and thrust from gas release.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/80196bae4058.jpg[/atsimg]

This image shows the object from a front/back view. I made it to show how side thrust would affect the object path.

The yellow arrow shows the angle change from side thrust. It would change it's angle to either side (depending from where the thrust came) or simply move a little to the left/right.

Now the important part in which we disagree.

If the object released some gas on an edge of its massrepresented by the red arrows, it wouldn't change direction. It would rotate on it's own axle, represented by the green arrows. The same would occur if the thrust came from the nose/tail of the object, producing some effect like a ball in a billiard table, accelerating or losing some speed.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0f86fb05e7d8.jpg[/atsimg]

This image represents what you can tell from the picture of the smoke trail.

It had a screw-forward effect. As shown in previous images, this can only be produced by having thrust coming from the tail and one of the sides (or some aerodynamic part, like wings), represented by the red arrows, showing the direction of the thrust and the effects produced on the path.

The orange path shows you what the path would look like with only gravitational descend, without thrust. , while the blue arrow shows you the effect that the object had (linear forward, with screw effect) according to sightings and the trail of smoke, only possible (in my opinion) with aerodynamic help or auxiliary thrust from the side AND tail (not consistant with a meteor).

As for the possibility of aerodynamic influences made by the objects nature, I don't think it's consistant with a meteor.

A plane without 25% of it's wings cannot perform such maneuvers, and I don't believe a meteor has enough aerodynamic shapes to make that happen, at least, not a screw effect descend.

(dunno why this thing is messing up the colors, on preview it looks just right. -.- )

[edit on 11/9/09 by Tifozi]