It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jkrog08
I think that it seems unlikely, but possible that Cosmos crashed in the morning and was only discovered later on after a meteor drew attention to the area. But that still does not explain many things:
8.)Lets assume that the meteor crashed in Kecksburg about ten hours after Cosmos crashed in the same spot. What are the odds of that? They must be astronomical to say the least.
Also to say that Cosmos did crash in Kecksburg, rather than Canada would mean that some major errors were made by the tops in the field. As well as some very odd orbital mechanics taking place there. Also there is the fact that the theory of a Cosmos crash in Kecksburg does not fit at all with what was tracked by officials, who were tracking the failed probe, AS WELL the rocket booster.
Originally posted by MAC269
I have to say a wonderful thread here guys.
Just one point that has not been fully brought forward is this. To reach orbital velocity at all take a speed of about 17,000MPH so anything dropping out of orbit would be traveling just a bit slower.
Eyewitnesses say it was going as slowly as a light aircraft. That is a big discrepancy I think. Also anything that is traveling at reentry speed and hitting the ground would leave a big hole and unless totally solid there would be very little left of it. So if this where the Russian Venus Probe you would not be handing back or picking up much of anything. If it where a meteorite then Kecksburg might not be on the map anymore.
For these reasons I don’t think it was either but I am sure you will let me know why I am wrong.
Using some Newtonian mechanics, we can show that large enough rocks (on the order of 10 meters in diameter or more) will experience very little change in velocity due to air friction, and will impact Earth at velocities close to their original 11,000 m/s, with huge kinetic energies and the ability to form large impact craters. But, by the same mechanics, a pea-sized object will be slowed dramatically to a speed approaching its terminal velocity -- maybe to a final speed of a couple of hundred meters per second at best.
While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound.
In case after case, DNA has proven what scientists already know — that eyewitness identification is frequently inaccurate. In the wrongful convictions caused by eyewitness misidentification, the circumstances varied, but judges and juries all relied on testimony that could have been more accurate if reforms proven by science had been implemented.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you assume the object that came down in Kecksburg did so at 4:45pm, that may be true, but I am not automatically assuming that's true. It seems to me just as likely that an object could have come down in Kecksburg at 6:20am, and they only discovered it after seeing the 4:45pm fireball whatever that was, in which case it certainly could have been a Russian satellite recovered in Kecksburg. These are not conclusions but possibilities that the data doesn't rule out.
You are entitled to that belief and others share it. However I didn't say they landed in the same spot.
Originally posted by MAC269
Two totally different objects from space sticking the same area on the same day, I think the possibility is so remote that it is not worth considering.
Originally posted by JimOberg
In the end, the same-day fall of the super-secret Soviet Venus capsule, and the bright meteor, must have been coincidences. That happens, too.