It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Kecksburg UFO Crash: December 9th, 1965

page: 5
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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


I do understand the theory, however I humbly submit that the observed evidence in this case (including Johnson's report, and descent pattern in Kecksburg) argues strongly against that theory being accurate.

The theory that an unidentified flying object crashed in Kecksburg, that was not Cosmos 96, nor any other man-made technology, holds a lot more weight when tested against the data set that exists.

While it could have been a meteor, that theory does not explain the recovery effort, nor the eyewitness reports, nor the descent characteristics.

The data set suggests (IMHO) that the simplest explanation in this case would be a crashed technology from another world.

If the data on the Cosmos 96 crash supported the Kecksburg thoery, I would certainly feel differently. Unfortunately for that theory, Johnson is clearly the authority here, and his report unequivocally states:

“I can tell you categorically, that there is no way that any debris from Cosmos 96 could have landed in Pennsylvania anywhere around 4:45 p.m.,” said Johnson in an interview on October 10, 2003. “That’s an absolute. Orbital mechanics is very strict.”

So without evidence of false data supplied by US Space Command, and somehow switched out of Johnson's own data set as well, it is the opinion of this author that Johnson's report should be read as the most accurate study of the Kecksburg event to date (as pertaining to the possibility of Cosmos 96 being the impactor).

-WFA




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


Tifozi, while I understand what you are saying (and you seem to be correct in your pictures) I think you are describing a gaseous release in space (no gravity).

If the object that's moving is within the Earth's gravity well, Gravity becomes the primary acting force, and the gaseous expellant really shouldn't have much affect, unless is was a tremendously powerful release.

In space, without gravity, a gaseous release can very much affect the trajectory of a moving object (that's how one plan to steer asteroids away from the Earth would work), however within the Earth's gravity well, these rules change...

Hope that makes sense...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Anyone know the current status of Leslie Kean's law suit against NASA for release of information regarding the 1965 Kecksburg, PA incident? I believe it's been pending for a long time.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ufo reality
 


2002 was the last I heard anything new on that investigation:
www.jerrypippin.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by observe50
There are a few things that I thought odd to say the least for instance:

The land owners said that men from the Government were in there home and used there phones to make calls and I wonder why no one checked the phone records or what there phone bill would have stated the following month to see where those calls were made to.


Nightvision posted some documentaries on page 3. The one from unexplained mysteries clearly states that the witness who said officials used their phone also said none of those calls ever showed up on their phone bill. Strange, right?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufo reality
Anyone know the current status of Leslie Kean's law suit against NASA for release of information regarding the 1965 Kecksburg, PA incident? I believe it's been pending for a long time.


I haven't seen anything since this msnbc story dated October 26, 2007:

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Arby already posted a video showing that meteors can make hard turns just because of gas release.

The problem is that the movement that this object made, in my opinion, needs rear propulsion.

If gas is released and you only have the momentum of gravity, then you lose direction, not allowing you to make a screw-forward effect. Gravity can't make you go up and down.

[edit on 11/9/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.



Tifozi, this meteor does not make a hard turn, in my view. It's making a gradual bend, but viewed from a '3d' perspective. It looks like a hard turn from the camera's vantage point, but is in fact a relatively slight change of direction. It's just an illusion of the viewpoint.

For example, in a schematic drawing, you draw a front view, side view and top view of an object. From these drawings, you can then make a '3d' view rendering.

That '3d' view is the perspective I think we're seeing in that video, of a slightly bent line.

I hope that makes sense.

I quoted Arby above, because I think he explains it very well in that post.

But you are absolutely right, this is in no way a corkscrew or spiral, it's just a trajectory adjustment, with the primary force still being gravity.

To achieve a corkscrew, you would need a hard burn of propellent, not a random burst of a gaseous overheated pocket with limited 'fuel'.

I've seen rockets launched from Vandenberg make spirals when they fail, because the booster doesn't disengage. I can't really think of a physical mechanism that describes that effect in nature, it's a product of a propellant burn of extended duration.

I agree with your assessment that the object in the Kecksburg case seemed to be under a 'controlled burn'.

-WFA



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 





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


Because you used apostrophes, they disrupt the color code.



Now on to your post....EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTION, star from me.
Very lucid so a laymen can understand as if it were being taught in a preschool class,lol. Thank you for your continued input into this case, it is MUCH appreciated!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
jkrog you are welcome


My post probably is not going to shed some light on the incident, but it is something I wish to share.

First of all I firmly believe that as above so below.

We have been accustomed to think about alien lifeforms and especially intelligent ones in very general and vague terms. Well, alien lifeforms are as unknown to us as the pinnacle of our scientific research efforts, as the "theory of everything" is. Yet we don't see people who deal with that staff, such as physicists, astronomers and mathematicians proffering to deal with these theories in very general and vague terms. They do real work. Even if everything lays in the theoretical side of things they treat it as it is in front of their eyes. Making observations, searching for things, develop theories, examining every possible angle. Erase it and start from scratch. Keep repeating a painstaking process.
UFO research has left much to be desired for if it was to work in the same process. For me it's just plain wrong. Do we take the possibility of take alien life seriously? Do we take the possibility of intelligent alien life seriously? Do we deal with UFO research and we feel UFO are to attributed to intelligent alien lifeforms? If yes, then where are our theories? Where is our research of the political aspect of them? Political aspect in terms of a reality that possible mirrors our own reality. if they were simply Gods they wouldn't need to visit us or make crafts to fly around, risking accidents and war with other species. (we could be at war with them if we were as advanced as they supposedly are) Therefore yes there is a risk of war every time they enter our space, but we lack the technology to give it to them, yet.
They probably bleed like we bleed and hurt like we hurt and are in need of alliances, even enemies just like we do. So, why we don't take them seriously enough to start exploring them in a similar way like we would explore another nation on our planet? There are some completely idiotic common myths out there some times so persistent you think it is some kind of brain washing in order to not take this phenomenon seriously. Like we all know the good guys are from Pleiades's they look like as and the bad guys are from Sirius and they look like the grays or vice versa. Oh really? How do you know? Well, a vision told me.. or a ghost told me.
Yeah right, go back to your medication if this is the case. :p

This has to stop!

If it is a phenomenon, then we must take it seriously.
I bet they have their own version of UN up there, or their own version of NATO up there and probably their own versions of Americans and Russians for that matter. We do it, why wouldn't they? we are as alien to them as they are for us. so there you have it. At least one alien civilization (us) has this. Why shouldn't more of them have a similar structure?
Lets say we interpret anomalous events in our historical past and assume it was extraterrestrials. some popular conspiracy theories about aliens picture them as Good or bad. It is like this situation only has two interpretations, black or white, yet our anomalous historical past might prove that there was a lot of gray areas in between. We don't understand why they were allowed to be here, yet we agree they made grave mistakes considering their involvement in our progress. We don't understand because we don't consider the "gray" areas of these matters. No one is good or bad. There are just beings out there striving for outcomes just like we do. It is that as we lack some things and we are not a perfect race, so must be many of them. Nothing is perfect. Only God is. Makes sense doesn't it?

Since I done my explaining for my way of viewing things I will proceed about what I think the Kecksburg incident of 1965 was.

The other fireball (except the one that was the UFO) that was witnessed there is a big chance it was another debris of Kosmos 96. This case feels like this UFO wanted to be mistaken as a part of the Kosmos debris since it might have used the timing and pathing of the Kosmos debris to disguise it's descent and presence, maybe not from just us. It was, as witnessed, flying like a drop ship, or a meteor, apparently no intelligent control just a steep dive, but it also displayed some characteristics of control, probably only for a fraction of its total steep descend, in order to reach a clearing and not to major damage in the flora of their intended landing spot.
We really don't know of the do's and don't s up there in respect of or planet. There has to be some since we get so much traffic. There are probably reasons they fly all the way here as their initial destination or as simply another way point on their routes.
I believe this "mission" was a success since the army finally got it and it also was coincidentally at the right time to be mistaken as Russian equipment the army would be very interested in also. (So, hey! They didn't initially hurt anyone, not the general open public opinion, they didn't intervene in a blatant manner, only affected a closed group known in this civilization as the "military" who do a lot of strange things anyway) (Thinking out loud trying to determine which parts of a supposed protocol they didn't brake, or did brake, and which actions would seem like "politically correct or not" considering the events interpretation according to my model of thinking)
The scream (or both screams) just makes me feel it was something that was NOT supposed to be here at all. There were always were disturbing encounters but the majority of them never hurt ed witnesses, or didn't give out a feel they were intending to hurt anyone (appalling life forms, disgusting smell, nauseating feeling to the witnesses). In this case regarding the "scream" part probably did intend to hurt someone.

Someone used the opportunity window of an earthly interplanetary probe (first type of probes that were able to reach another planet in human history) malfunctioning in order to send down something with a flight path that was disguising it as a debris of that probe. Probably there are weird politics having nothing to do with us and everything to do with us that are going on here IMO. Someone is keeping things from entering and someone wants a politically correct reason to have some of its technology or whatever to be found, contrary to some protocol they want to circumvent.

It might be a far fetched hypothesis based on assumptions upon assumptions and completely unsubstantiated, but lets face it, We are not going anywhere with our typical ways of doing research for UFOs anyways, so what the heck, lets check things from this angle too. God knows there are more idiotic theories out there that people take seriously (or they think they do)

My 2 cents.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by spacebot]

[edit on 11-9-2009 by spacebot]

[edit on 11-9-2009 by spacebot]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Well my friend, in the end we agree, but disagree on details. lol

I'll try to explain it later with some new data if I gather it.

reply to post by jkrog08
 


Thank you for the kind words.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


Please do Tifozi, I always learn something from your posts, they're incredibly well thought out and informative.


Thanks for going over the physics with me! I always love to do thought experiments, and you laid out that post so well


Also, I think its worth pointing out, that like many other serious UFO researchers, I like to entertain multiple theories, as long as they fit with the observable evidence in the case.

Your theory certainly seems to fit, so if you don't mind I'll be including it in my list of known possibilities.


Along with my own theory of course


-WFA



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 

Thanks for the explanation, it makes it very clear.

But I don't know if I disagree with it, I could not remember my post from yesterday and reading it now I don't understand why I wrote that.


It looks like I was more tired than I thought.

Well, at least it gave you an opportunity of explaining it in a very clear way.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Arby already posted a video showing that meteors can make hard turns just because of gas release.


Excellent post with diagrams Tifozi!

Just to clarify, the video I posted was intended to merely show that what appears to be a meteor or other falling object may not fall in a straight line, but that doesn't mean it's intelligently controlled. While I did mention that the heat of re-entry could heat the meteor to the point where gases could escape and divert it's straight trajectory, I do agree with Armap that there are other possible explanations like aerodynamic forces for causing non-linear motion.

For example, see this photo of a Chondrite meteorite showing Regmaglypts:


www.solarviews.com...


This meteorite fell in 1924. Notice the depreessions on this sample. These are called regmaglypts and are most likely paralled to the air flow direction during the flight of the meteorite. (Copyright Calvin J. Hamilton)


The interesting thing about the regmaglypts is that they suggest some stability of the orientation of the meteor as it heats up in the atmosphere! This may be unusual but if you can get this kind of stability of the orientation with a constant part of the meteor pointing downward as suggested by the regmaglypts, irregularities in the shape of the object could make it turn or do other maneuvers, nothing too fancy but the video I posted is certainly within the range of possible motions caused by aerodynamics as AraMaP suggested. So that's one possibility for a meteor to divert from a straight trajectory.

To look at the other possibility I was suggesting more accurately, you would need to modify your first diagram as follows:

The yellow horizontal line representing the trajectory of momentum, I would show pointing at least slightly down, (though I do have a very interesting story about a UFO a pilot sighted in level flight which I believe to be a meteor, so I'm not saying nearly level flight is impossible, for a meteor as he was over 30,000 feet so it's more possible at that altitude I think See this link starting at 1m10s for the Lufthansa 405 sighting video.google.com...# ). The bottom red arrow I would delete. The top red arrow I would shift over so it emits from a point closer to the center of gravity of the object. Then as a result of this, you would replace the 2 green arrows with a single straight green arrow pointing in the opposite direction of the red arrow. That is the gaseous effect I was trying to describe.

MS Encarta describes how some rocky objects can contain ice:

encarta.msn.com...

Because of their small size and primitive composition, asteroids share many basic properties with comets. Comets typically have much more elliptical orbits than asteroids and actively shed gas and dust. Although asteroids are mainly rocky, some may also contain water-ice material and so are not clearly distinct from objects that can become comets if heated by enough sunlight. It is also possible that some objects that are considered asteroids are remains of dead comets that have lost their gas and dust. In 2006 astronomers announced finding a number of icy comet-like objects orbiting in the main asteroid belt, suggesting that asteroids and comets can occur together.


As that suggests, the distinction between comets and meteorites may not be as clear-cut as some people have been led to believe. While it may be true that many objects are primarily rocky or primarily "icy", it certainly seems possible that a rocky object with some icy remnants trapped inside could fall to the earth. As someone suggested earlier, the solar wind may have eliminated the surface ice but the possibility of icy substances being trapped inside inaccessible to the solar wind remains. It is conceivable at least that those icy remnants could be converted to steam from the heat of re-entry. This could create possibly even a partial explosion changing the trajectory suddenly, or if the steam could find a crack to exit from, the exhaust from the crack would be somewhat comparable to a rocket motor.

I have one other piece of evidence that I doubt most people have seen, but I think it's interesting so I'll share it. Don't beat me up saying it's not "good" evidence, as I admit up front I'm not exactly sure how good it is, but I still think it's interesting.

It was on cufon last year but looks like they took it down so I had to get it from the wayback machine here: The Odd Flying Objects of E. L. Trouvelot




The artifact is a chromolithograph illustration. It depicts a meteor shower on the evening of November 13-14, 1868. It was drawn by Etienne Leopold Trouvelot of 27 Myrtle Street in Medford, Massachusetts (the next town over from UHR headquarters!). Displayed is activity witnessed over a five-hour period by Trouvelot of the Leonid meteors, an annual event that is well known to anyone into astronomy. As one can see, there are some very odd meteors in this rendition.
(snip)
Trouvelot described what he saw in the Manual:
"My observations were begun a little after midnight, and continued without interruption till sunrise. Over three thousand meteors were observed during this interval of time in the part of the sky visible from a northern window of my house. The maximum fall occurred between four and five o'clock, when they appeared at a mean rate of 15 in a minute."

"In general, the falling stars were quite large, many being superior to Jupiter in brightness and apparent size, while a few even surpassed Venus, and were so brilliant that opaque objects cast a strong shadow during their flight. A great many left behind them a luminous train, which remained visible for more or less time after the nucleus had vanished. In general, these meteors appeared to move either in straight or slightly curved orbits; but quite a number among them exhibited very extraordinary motions. and followed very complicated paths. some of which were quite incomprehensible." (emphasis added, Editor)

"While some moved either in wavy or zig-zag lines, strongly accentuated, others, after moving for a time in a straight line, gradually changed their course, curving upward or downward, thus moving in a new direction. Several among them, which were apparently moving in a straight line with great rapidity, suddenly altered their course, starting at an abrupt angle in another direction, with no apparent slackening in their motion."


Some of the apparent motion was attributed to autokinesis but if that can affect Trouvelot, it can also affect other observers.

Anyway I apologize if I suggested I knew why the object in the video I posted didn't fall in a straight line, as I'm not sure of the reason. It could be one of these reasons or yet another reason. All I can say for sure is that it didn't fall in a straight line, but that doesn't lead me to presume any intelligent control given the simple movement.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arby I must say that you make one hell of an argument my friend!

What a fantastic post! While I'm still having a hard time believing that the Kecksburg event was a meteor (the recovery is still really bothering me) I must admit that it sure is nice to see an ATS poster bring so much credible evidence to the table.

Regarding the illustration, I personally don't see that as 'bad evidence' at all. Before we had telescopes with digital eyepieces and USB Connections, all there was available were the drawings made by observers. Heck, if not for the drawings of Schiaparelli, Percival Lowell never would have built the Lowell Observatory...

Likewise this painting shows an observers perspective of what can only be described as UFOs (before the dawn of cameras...)



Source:
wilsonsalmanac.blogspot.com...

So I guess my question(s) here Arby, is

1) Do you think that the Kecksburg event was a meteor?

2)If so, how do you explain the Fireman's report from the scene, cited here in JKrog's original post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

3) If so, how does this explain the reported military recovery effort?

4) If so, how does the meteor theory in any way corroborate the claim by NASA made here:
"In December 2005, just before the Kecksburg crash 40th anniversary, NASA released a statement to the effect that they had examined metallic fragments from the object and now claimed it was from a re-entering "Russian satellite." The spokesman further claimed that the related records had been misplaced. According to an Associated Press story: The object appeared to be a Russian satellite that re-entered the atmosphere and broke up. NASA experts studied fragments from the object, but records of what they found were lost in the 1990s."
www.examiner.com...

If you do not personally ascribe to the meteor theory, I'd like to personally thank you for posting all of the meteor information, so that a fair comparison can be made here in the thread to the possible descent path of such an object, but I would like to know what your personal favorite theory on this case might be?

Thanks Arby!


-WFA



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Thank you for bringing up this interesting case jkrog08. Again, well researched.


You've summed up this case very well. I have nothing to add at this stage other than remembering having read an eyewitness account from a truck driver who was in the area at the time and noticed a blue glow coming from the woods where the object apparently crashed. I can't remember where I read this though.

I'll have to look into this case further as I recall reading more information on this. If I find anything of note I'll let you guys know.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So I guess my question(s) here Arby, is

1) Do you think that the Kecksburg event was a meteor?

2)If so, how do you explain the Fireman's report from the scene, cited here in JKrog's original post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

3) If so, how does this explain the reported military recovery effort?

4) If so, how does the meteor theory in any way corroborate the claim by NASA made here:
"In December 2005, just before the Kecksburg crash 40th anniversary, NASA released a statement to the effect that they had examined metallic fragments from the object and now claimed it was from a re-entering "Russian satellite." The spokesman further claimed that the related records had been misplaced. According to an Associated Press story: The object appeared to be a Russian satellite that re-entered the atmosphere and broke up. NASA experts studied fragments from the object, but records of what they found were lost in the 1990s."
www.examiner.com...

If you do not personally ascribe to the meteor theory, I'd like to personally thank you for posting all of the meteor information, so that a fair comparison can be made here in the thread to the possible descent path of such an object, but I would like to know what your personal favorite theory on this case might be?


Thanks for the feedback WFA.

As for what happened in Kecksburg, I'm not really sure. Jkrog08 posted so much great information it's going to take a while to sort through it all to come to any conclusions. As you know I try to do some research before jumping to an explanation. I find the report from NASA interesting that they had remains of a Russian Satellite, though I haven't verified that.

I'll tell you what I think so far:

I suspect at least two objects fell from the sky that day, one in the morning, and one in the afternoon, but I reserve the right to change my theory after I see more evidence.

The US Space command says the Kosmos-96 fell over Canada at 3:18 and maybe that's true. Or maybe a part of the Kosmos-96 launch vehicle fell there, which wasn't the actual satellite. Or maybe their report is a little erroneous intentionally or unintentionally and it fell in PA at 6:20am when nobody was looking at the sky so they didn't see it fall. I'm not saying that's what happened, just saying I haven't ruled it out, and neither did Nicholas L. Johnson, NASA's chief scientist for orbital debris. There is more of interest than just the Kosmos-96 satellite itself. Johnson, according to Leslie Kean, apparently suggested that there was more debris in space from the Kosmos-96 Launch than the satellite itself. Exactly what parts, and how big they are, I don't know yet, but it does make sense that the launch vehicle had more components than just the satellite, and the other components were in different orbits than the satellite so they could fall at different places in different times. If anyone has details about these other components of the Kosmos-96 launch, please post them. I think it's something that can be researched further.

So probably at least one part of Kosmos-96 fell in the morning. Where I'm not sure (probably Canada or possibly PA). What were the other parts of the Kosmos-96 launch vehicle in orbit besides the satellite, what were their orbits, and where did they fall? Those questions are unanswered, for me, at least.

And something fell from the sky in the northeastern US that afternoon at 4:45 pm. I have no idea what the object was, or where it fell. I do not trust eyewitness testimony at all concerning where objects coming from the sky fall, because it has been demonstrated numerous times that in general, people always seem to think the object fell a lot closer than it did. As I said before, one possibility I haven't ruled out is that when they saw an object falling at 4:45 and went looking for it thinking it fell nearby, that they actually found the remnants of something that had fallen earlier that day, like perhaps Kosmos-96 or some other part of that launch vehicle. I'm not saying that's what happened, just that I haven't ruled it out. So even if it was a meteor they saw at 4:45 PM, I'm not saying that's what was recovered, it would likely be something else like possibly Kosmos-96 remnants.

Or I guess we can't rule out that something different from a meteor or Kosmos-96 crashed in Kecksburg. What could it be? That's anybody's guess, some have guessed it could be an escape pod with an alien inside from a nearby mothership that was having problems with the life support systems or something. While that wouldn't be my first guess, I can't rule it out.

I do think that the best evidence is anything immediately written down after an event happens. Witnesses do not always remember details accurately even if they are not lying and trying to tell the truth. Case in point is the JAL1628 incident I recently researched. Capt Terauchi recalled the details of his flight and he made some very specific errors in his testimony about what happened regarding the maneuvers his plane made that were directly contradicted by air traffic control transcripts and ground radar tracking data, so he was clearly in error about what happened, even though I believe he was honestly trying to recall what happened to the best of his ability. And the further from the event you get, the less reliable witness testimony becomes. In this case I have to wonder if any of the witnesses stories have become embellished over time, I would be surprised if they haven't. So for example what I would prefer to look at instead of a video of the fireman's testimony 25 years later, is the entry the fireman made in his logbook at the time, I consider that type of evidence to be better, but I haven't found a lot of evidence like that in this case yet.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arby, thanks for expounding on your theory(s) for me. I asked because (as is usual) you often have a solid working theory and I like to check my data (especially the key points in a case that have swayed my opinion one way or the other) against other researcher's independent analysis.

I think we're pretty much in agreement here, as to what the data set suggests.

The one point I really want to be clear on though, is that I don't believe that the 4:45pm impact in Kecksburg could possibly have been Cosmos 96. And why I feel Johnson's report agrees with this assessment.

The reason why I don't feel it's possible, is that in a decaying orbit, an object will never repeat the same arc across the sky without being boosted (assisted by a propellant burn) to a geo-sync orbit at that altitude, and course correcting to maintain the proper orbit.

It's hard to put into words, I'll do my best... The object is falling in what amounts to a straight line within Einstein's 'curved spacetime'. As it is falling, the object is not lined up in orbit, but lined up to re-enter Atmo. This puts the object (within curved spacetime) on almost a straight line trajectory with it's eventual impact point. This impact point can be predicted accurately using the decay rate (and Atmo insertion angle) of the falling object.

So following that straight line in curved spacetime, at a constant rate of descent, you can extrapolate that the falling object will almost never make a return to the exact same previous position in the sky. So by Johnson finding Kecksburg within the orbital pattern of the falling object before the impact event, he's actually ruled out the possibility of it returning to that position later that day. His calculations and extrapolations merely confirm what orbital mechanics initially implies.

I hope I explained that well enough, I'm sorry I'm not better at getting that point across...

_________________________________________________

Also of note -

I spoke with a good friend of mine who works for Boeing here in LA, regarding the descent path of a falling object, and he agreed with my assessment of the video'd meteor, that the 'hard turn' is an illusion of perspective.

He added that while my theory about gravity being the primary force in play was essentially correct on the base physics level, that he thought the momentum of the falling object (indirectly related to Earth's gravity well...) was really the primary force at play, and that a gaseous escape due to heat could only hope to alter the straight-line course of the falling object. A 'hard turn' would be impossible, according to my friend. He added, if something were small enough to bounce off the Atmosphere, it would be so high up that you couldn't see it from the ground with your eyes.

____________________________________________________


At any rate, I also would like to add that the chances of two bodies falling from space independently of each other within the same orbital arc on the same day.... well, I just feel the need to point out here as an amateur statistician
that the odds are getting very difficult to believe.

Arby, I'd love to hear your thoughts on these points outlined above. I tried to get my friend to join ATS, but he's not so into it. I'll ask him questions though if you like, and maybe we can goad him into joining and posting


-WFA



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
At any rate, I also would like to add that the chances of two bodies falling from space independently of each other within the same orbital arc on the same day.... well, I just feel the need to point out here as an amateur statistician
that the odds are getting very difficult to believe.
And if both objects were part of the same (Kosmos 96 or not) original object that for some reason broke in two?

Or, for an even stranger reason, one of those was Kosmos 96 and the other was what really made Kosmos 96 fail?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
And if both objects were part of the same (Kosmos 96 or not) original object that for some reason broke in two?


That's a very good point ArMaP, assuming that Kosmos broke up into two major component pieces, each piece should have originated with the same starting trajectory, and each piece's course would be slightly altered at the point at which Kosmos theoretically broke up.

This IMHO, actually leaves even less of a chance for a return to the same orbit, later in the day, over Kecksburg. It would seem that this would also allow for the theory that the impactor in Canada and the impactor at Kecksburg were two pieces of the same object, however the timeline of events (and the appearance of Kosmos 96 over Kecksburg early that morning) precludes that entering object from having been Kosmos 96...

At least, that's how it seems upon my reading of the data... Thoughts ArMaP?
By the by, nice to run across you in a thread
It's been too long my friend! I've missed discussing such cases with you!


Originally posted by ArMaP
Or, for an even stranger reason, one of those was Kosmos 96 and the other was what really made Kosmos 96 fail?


Now there's a theory that seems to fit with the observable evidence...
Very interesting point!

-WFA



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join