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: 8
56
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dear Arbitrageur

From Arbitrageur
“Over a million objects enter the earths atmosphere every day. I see no reason why 2 of them couldn't fall within a few hundred miles of each other, but you're under no obligation to agree with my assessment of the odds.”

Yes I have no problem with a few hundred miles difference but that would make it very fast and very very big leaving a very very big hole. Somwhere????




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
Yes I have no problem with a few hundred miles difference but that would make it very fast and very very big leaving a very very big hole. Somwhere????


It takes a big object to make a crater. But the object doesn't have to be that big to make a big fireball. As for the speed, yes of course it would be fast at first , maybe over 20,000 mph but it would slow down unless it's big.

To repeat:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
the overwhelmingly vast majority of meteorites don't leave any craters in the ground.


There are many meteors in this video, it's great!


Now I have a question for you. For each one of those, how far away is the object, how big is it, and how fast is it traveling? No need to answer, we don't know, and that's my point. But chances are, they are all further away than you think they are. The same would be true of most witnesses in Kecksburg or anywhere else. People tend to think the objects are much closer than they are.

Based on what we know about meteors statistically, I expect that most of them you'd have a hard time even seeing the objects that hit the ground, if they hit the ground at all. They just aren't going that fast when they hit the ground unless they are big and even though they make big fireballs and can be seen at a long distance doesn't automatically imply that something big hit the ground.

I doubt this one left a crater either:



apod.nasa.gov...


What happens when a meteor hits the ground? Usually nothing much, as most meteors are small, and indentations they make are soon eroded away.


Of course there are exceptions as that photo shows but that was made by a large object 50,000 years ago.

But here's what these things usually look like when they hit the ground:


www.nasa.gov...

Where's the crater? Most people would walk right past that object without giving it a second glance. They only found it because they had teams of people specifically searching for it. This is a very well documented story, I suggest reading it, you can learn a lot about impacts from it:

Meteorites Found in Africa From First Predicted Asteroid Hit


Remember in October 2008 when Asteroid 2008 TC3 hit the scene – literally? This was the first asteroid that was predicted –and predicted correctly — to impact the Earth. Luckily, it wasn't big enough to cause any problems, and its path was over a remote area in Africa. It streaked into the skies over northern Sudan in the early morning of October 7, 2008, and then exploded at a high 37 km above the Nubian Desert, before the atmosphere could slow it down. It was believed that the asteroid likely had completely disintegrated into dust. But meteor astronomer Peter Jenniskens thought there might be a chance to recover some of the remains of this truck-sized asteroid. And he was right.



Fifteen fresh-looking meteorites with a total mass of 563 g were recovered by 45 students and staff of the University of Khartoum during a field campaign on December 5-8, 2008. A second search on December 25-30 with 72 participants raised the total to 47 meteorites and 3.95 kg. Masses range from 1.5 g to 283 g, spread for 29km along the approach path in a manner expected for debris from 2008 TC3


This was a truck sized asteroid and most meteors are far smaller than that, including some that make huge fireballs in the sky.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sorry but I can't reconcile witness reports with the photo you show.

Flat bed trucks aren't required for something you can put in a handbag.

Take your pick from the 4 options in my previous post or if you have a 5th please could you point out exactly what it is you are proposing ?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by chunder
 


You mean these witnesses who identified the object as looking just like a Russian Satellite?



Which confirms the NASA statement it was a Russian satellite?

I don't know what happened that day. But I can't rule out the possibility that a Russian satellite landed in Kecksburg at 6:20am, then a meteor fell a hundred miles or more from Kecksburg at 4:45pm, and the witnesses who saw the meteor went looking for the fallen object thinking it was much closer, and found the Russian satellite, called up some officials, and the officials came to recover it. Your 4 options are not the only possibilities.

Something else could have fallen in Kecksburg that day. But I guess I place less credibility on witness testimony than some because I have read a lot of research about how unreliable witness testimony is. It's very unreliable, and in this case, we even have some witnesses saying that nothing happened in Kecksburg that afternoon. If witnesses are so credible, should we believe them? No? OK then you agree also that some witnesses are not reliable!

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
One thing that I have been thinking about this case is that we have a way of comparing it with a know spacecraft that fell to Earth, the Genesis probe, and although it was strongly affected by hitting the ground at 103 mph it did not made a crater and it was not completely destroyed either.





posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


That's a good example ArMaP.

I used to live in PA, east of Kecksburg, and after hiking and mountain biking in different areas of the state, I can say there's a good possibility that the ground in PA could be even softer than the ground where Genesis landed. Ravines there can be tricky terrain, alternating between rocky outcrops which would have been much harder than the soil Genesis hit, to spongy accumulations of decades of decomposing leaves that could be quite soft. It could take a bit of luck to hit a softer patch but if that happened I could envision something like Genesis surviving the fall without even cracking.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I found some additional data, thought you all might find it of interest:

[The object was 12 feet long and 6 to 7 feet in diameter, and shaped like an acorn. It had a ring around the base, just like an acorn, that bore what Romansky described as backward letters, like a backward J or K. Some have described the lettering as resembling Egyptian hieroglyphics - lines, stars, circles and shapes. The craft had no doors or windows. The metal was seamless, with a dent, but bearing no rivets or welds.]

[Eyewitnesses, including Romansky, insist the writing on the girth was not Russian. Others claim that while the right shape, it was not the right size, and did not bear the seams and rivets that characterized Soviet and U.S. spacecraft of that era.]

[In 1991, I obtained the ordinants from the Goddard Space Center for the flight of Kosmos 96. I had James Oberg, an expert on Soviet spacecraft who also is a UFO skeptic, review the ordinants to see if it could have been Kosmos 96. Oberg concluded that, based on the ordinants provided by the Goddard Space Center, it could not be Kosmos 96 - a point that, to Oberg's dismay, buoyed UFO advocates and has continued to be a hot topic on the Internet.]

[Oberg amended his theories in an article published in September 1993 on the OMNI service on America On Line. There, he suggested that the Kosmos 96 theory could account for U.S. Space Command's conclusions that it landed in Canada and also in Kecksburg.]

[Oberg acknowledges that the ordinants, which have been reviewed by a leading amateur satellite watcher who didn't want his name revealed, seemed to confirm the official Air Force account that Kosmos 96 crashed in Canada more than 12 hours earlier than the Kecksburg crash. But Oberg checked the data further. The released tracking data, he said, couldn't be positively identified with specific pieces of the failed probe.]

I take issue with Oberg's claim here that the tracking data could not identify the probe. The tracking data I've sourced in this thread says otherwise. The probe was identified as 94A, and tracked by US Space Command until it crashed in Canada. The ONLY piece of unidentified debris could have come down in Kecksburg, however we KNOW that that piece of debris was not the probe module, because we've all now seen the tracking data Oberg never bothered to actually share...

["The Russians would never suspect, and the Air Force laboratories could examine the specimen at leisure. And if suspicion lingered, UFO buffs would be counted on to maintain the phony cover story, protecting the real truth."]

This quote from Oberg, regarding his proposed claim that Kosmos 96 did come down in Kecksburg, and his theory as to 'why' the US would cover up such an event, is in DIRECT CONTRAST with his own continued claims that Kosmos 96 was in fact the impactor.

All of the above quoted text, relevant to the discussion here, was excerpted from a Post-Gazzette article here:
www.post-gazette.com...

The main reason I post this data is that this reporter, David Templeton, seems to have sourced direct information from eyewitnesses on the reported size and shape of the object.

I also found this interesting, data on the Cosmos 96 orbit straight from NASA:


Type: Orbiter
Central Body: Earth
Epoch start: 1965-11-23 03:21:00 UTC
Epoch stop: 1965-12-01 00:00:00 UTC
Orbital Parameters
Periapsis Apoapsis Period Inclination Eccentricity
227.0 km 310.0 km 89.80000305175781 minutes 51.900001525878906° 0.003120000008493662


Type: Orbiter
Central Body: Earth
Epoch start: 1965-12-01 00:00:00 UTC
Epoch stop: 1965-12-09 00:00:00 UTC
Orbital Parameters
Periapsis Apoapsis Period Inclination Eccentricity
209.0 km 262.0 km 89.19999694824219 minutes 51.880001068115234° 0.004009999800473452


Source:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Considering that Jim Oberg as already posted on this thread I think you can him for a clarification, I am sure he doesn't mind answering your questions.


PS: what is the meaning of "ordinants"?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

Thanks WFA, good info, starred!

I would point out that the post Gazette article was written September 09, 1998

The post that Jim Oberg made on page 1 appears to be sourced from a January 7, 2008 article he wrote and posted on his website: www.jamesoberg.com...

So I'm assuming the latter is a more up to date perspective of his views.


Originally posted by ArMaP
PS: what is the meaning of "ordinants"?


I don't know, I guessed from the context it was referring to numbers like these:


Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Orbital Parameters
Periapsis Apoapsis Period Inclination Eccentricity
227.0 km 310.0 km 89.80000305175781 minutes 51.900001525878906° 0.003120000008493662


I didn't find much yet on a Google search of that term.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Considering that Jim Oberg as already posted on this thread I think you can him for a clarification, I am sure he doesn't mind answering your questions.



Unfortunately ArMaP, Mr. Oberg doesn't really like to answer my questions. In fact, the moment I enter a thread he strangely seems to disappear...

It really is too bad, because I'd love to hear his explanation of the different stances he's taken on the possibility of the impactor being Kosmos 96 over the years.



Originally posted by ArMaP
PS: what is the meaning of "ordinants"?


I'm not entirely sure either, I think that the reporter was trying to say the tracking data from the launch. I think the word he meant was 'ordinances'. But to be honest, I don't directly have a definition for the word with that spelling...

LOL don't worry ArMaP, even people from America come across English words we don't quite process! our language is way too complex and confusing!

Good eye!


-WFA



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If this is your option 5 it totally ignores photographic and eye witness evidence.

Are you saying that we have a meteor that left that smoke trail - as that has been traingulated and wasn't hundereds of miles away ?

But the falling russian hardware no-one noticed until it was found, almost intact with no crater, after causing local fire damage, whilst someone was looking for the meteor.

I just can't get times, photographic evidence and eye witness accounts to add up to anything other than some unexplained event.

What do the russians say about where it came down - did they dispute the Canada explanation ?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I've been saying for a while I needed to do more research before firming up my theories on this case, and I just made a major find. One of my theories was that the object that caused the fireball at 4:43pm didn't fall in Kecksburg, but it actually fell a great distance from Kecksburg. Actually I now know that what happened is, the fireball object exploded in the sky (similar to the 2008 asteroid impact I documented above) with a 99% likelihood (in my opinion after reading the evidence below) that any pieces from the explosion fell over 100 miles away from Kecksburg. I think with the evidence I just found I'm ready to change my theory about nothing from the great fireball landing in Kecksburg at 4:45pm from speculation to a theory supported by good evidence.

An Article called "Great Lakes Fireball", was published in the February, 1966 issue of Sky and Telescope magazine, page 78. See part of the article here. Great Lakes Fireball

In it, G. W. Wetherill, a professor of geophysics and geology at UCLA who investigated the incident, is quoted:


The fireball was observed by many people in Ontario, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent in neigboring states. In newspaper accounts, a great many supposed impact sites were reported, both in southwestern Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio. Fragments were claimed to have fallen in Ohio and Michigan.
These imagined happenings arose from the impossibility of estimating the distance of an object in the sky. Almost everyone who saw the fireball thought it was much closer than it really was. When it disappeared behind a house or a tree many people thought it had fallen only a few hundred yards beyond.

(from: The Kecksburg, Pennsylvania "UFO Crash" )

So it wasn't only in Kecksburg where people thought parts of the fireball probably fell nearby, it happened over a wide, multi-state region!

There were 2 very significant photographs taken of the fireball. Scientists collected the photos and details about the locations where the photos were taken, and were able to triangulate the trajectory of the object. The result of that trajectory indicates to me the extreme unlikelihood that any possible remnant of this fireball fell in Kecksburg around 4:45pm. So my conclusion is, that if anything fell in Kecksburg, it didn't happen at 4:45pm as a result of the great fireball, and I think this paper is pretty convincing evidence of that. Note the map where they triangulated the 2 photographs is of the Detroit, Michigan area!!! The distance between Detroit and Kecksburg is about 330 miles.

I plotted the burst point on Google Earth with a yellow pin near Detroit, and placed another yellow pin at Kecksburg. Note not only the great distance from the burst point to Kecksburg, but also note the northeasterly trajectory wouldn't have even given the fragments any momentum in the direction of Kecksburg. Some fragments may have acquired radial momentum from the explosion, and I therefore would expect to find them some distance away perhaps in Cleveland Ohio for example, but not in Kecksburg PA.


I know this is 7 pages of scientific analysis though 2 of those pages are (admittedly poor quality) photos, but since much of the Kecksburg case rests on claims that an object fell in Kecksburg at 4:45 pm, I don't see how any evidence is more important than this so I posted all of it.

PDF of scientific paper on the great fireball seen from Kecksburg:
(I don't know if this link will work or not):
The Fireball of Dec 9, 1965










[edit on 24-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I was wondering what you've been working on these last several hours LOL!

I knew it would be some good digging, but DAMN man!

That's a lot of (new to me) data to sort through, and it will take me a while to do it...

Thanks for digging it up! Very reputable source too


-WFA



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If this is your option 5 it totally ignores photographic and eye witness evidence.

Are you saying that we have a meteor that left that smoke trail - as that has been traingulated and wasn't hundereds of miles away ?


Please enlighten me about the photographic evidence I'm ignoring, and I'll look at it. I just posted some photographic evidence which confirms what I said.

My last post should give you details about the meteor also, including the exact trajectory, the exact point near Detroit Michigan where it exploded which I plotted on Google Earth, and the great distance from Kecksburg. The meteor at 4:43pm exploded over 300 miles northwest of Kecksburg and had a northeasterly trajectory before the explosion, so the momentum would likely have carried much (though not all) of the explosion debris in a Northeasterly direction.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Arby, I gave it an initial read through. It's entirely written from the perspective that the object was a meteor.

While I don't have any direct knowledge to state that it wasn't, I'll admit that they make a good case.

However what they've done in this report essentially was to extrapolate a trajectory from pictures of the fireball taken in Michigan, and using an assumed velocity they calculated an approximate orbit of the assumed meteorite.

Don't get me wrong here, this report could well be completely accurate. I just like to make sure that reports like this have their 'unknown factors' qualified...

I did find it interesting that this report is Copyrighted to the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, and seems to also have a NASA tag on it...

Wierd that the current Nasa page at the NSSDC I posted earlier today would proffer a different theory than what seems to be a fully developed one here that was published in the public forum in 1966...

This case is just wierd. I'm not sure what else to say at the moment.

I really wish I could find a report from a Canadian newspaper about the fireball. I'm still at a loss to explain why this can't be located online...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
However what they've done in this report essentially was to extrapolate a trajectory from pictures of the fireball taken in Michigan, and using an assumed velocity they calculated an approximate orbit of the assumed meteorite.


I wouldn't say the trajectory is extrapolated. Extrapolation refers to a projection of known data. That's not what they did (except for the orbit calculation, but the big unknown in the orbit calculation is the exact velocity which they can't calculate from photos).

They triangulated known data and identified 2 data points on the ACTUAL trajectory (not any extrapolated trajectory). They then calculated the exact point in 3 dimensional space where the object exploded. It was only 32.2 km above the ground when it exploded. The orbit calculation has some uncertainty (which they state), but I would say the uncertainty on the actual trajectory they calculated is not very large as it's based on real observed photographic data and not a projection from that data.

Any inference about the trajectories of the explosion fragments after the explosion, you could call extrapolations, but they didn't do that, I did based on my knowledge of the laws of physics, and based on the similar 2008 asteroid impact event which similarly exploded at an altitude of 37km. However they did state on pages 184-185 that

"A puff of smoke was visible at the terminal end of the train, where reports indicated the major burst occurred. The visible fireball ended at this point, but several observers reported that some material apparently continued beyond, along the original trajectory. This was subsequently confirmed by the photographs (figure 1)"

The Fireball of Dec 9, 1965

See the red dots on this map showing where debris from the 2008TC3 explosion was found:
www.universetoday.com...


Note how the pattern of red dots showing recovered debris doesn't deviate too far from the trajectory. However I must admit there could be pieces in areas further outside the trajectory that weren't searched, but still I think this gives us a pretty good idea that even after an explosion at 37km high, the laws of physics will still impart much of the pre-explosion momentum along the same trajectory.

Note I said I was only 99% certain no fragments made it to Kecksburg, but if the 1% chance happened and a fragment 32 kilometers high managed to make a right angle turn from northeast to southeast and travel 528 kilometers in the direction of Kecksburg before hitting the ground, then I would expect that fragment to be something like this:


www.nasa.gov...

They do seem to consider it a meteor but the explosion at 32km high is quite consistent with the 2008 asteroid explosion at 37km high, and the explosion is well documented in the photos, so we have to consider that they may be right about it being a meteor.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I wouldn't say the trajectory is extrapolated. Extrapolation refers to a projection of known data. That's not what they did (except for the orbit calculation, but the big unknown in the orbit calculation is the exact velocity which they can't calculate from photos).

They triangulated known data and identified 2 data points on the ACTUAL trajectory (not any extrapolated trajectory).


I suppose Extrapolated was not the correct word, but I still have a point here...

They made a guess about where the fireball was, based upon data within the photographer's pictures, and the photographer's locations.

But neither Photographer in this study actually snapped an image of the fireball itself.

What they did was place two points on the smoke trail (that were 'markers' in both photos) and compared the time the photos were taken, and from these two points they extrapolated a trajectory.

Now perhaps extrapolated isn't the proper word. I'm not sure what the proper word would be, but it seemed to fit in this situation.

Don't get me wrong here Arby, I think you make a good case, I just feel it's fair to point out that this case was made under the assumption that the object was a meteor, and that many of the conclusions drawn (such as the conclusion that the object had an orbital period in the Solar System at all, and wasn't just passing through...) were made based upon the assumption that this was a natural meteor.

I think that their calculations were enough to predict an accurate point of explosion (if that was indeed what triggered the seismograph), and their trajectory extrapolation (please substitute a different word, I don't mean to offend) seems accurate.

But to state that the object was a meteor, and to attempt to calculate that meteor's orbit (that would have theoretically allowed it to decay in that time and place at that velocity...) is all really just guesswork.

Only photographic evidence of the object before the explosion (assuming you could see anything at all in the fireball surrounding the object) would allow a fair assessment of what the object was.

Of course, there still is the small matter of the News media and Police and Firemen reporting the Military coming in to the Kecksburg area to recover 'something' that apparently left town on a flat-bed truck headed for Wright Patterson, and was about 12 feet long...

If I'm wrong on my assessment of the Sky & Telescope mag, please let me know why you think my analysis is off. Perhaps Phage will want to weigh in on this as well?

-WFA



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Excellent research - star for you.

Forgive me for perhaps being a bit slow but I still do not see what you are trying to say.

Is it that the eye witness reports, local fires and other accounts refer to a meteorite that disintegrated hundreds of miles away but subsequently a totally unrelated large object was found locally ?

Or that two events happened, the meteorite and the coming to earth of a large object, possibly of russian manuafacture ?

I accept and applaud if you do not have a coherent theory currently and are just researching but there must be a particular direction you are heading ?

Unless I am being dumb here (which is a good possibility) I still cannot reconcile the information available to any conclusion other than one of the 4 options previously presented.

Basically the case is fairly simple - you either accept a large object was
recovered at Kecksburg or not.

If not then fine - obviously a lot of people either lied or were deluded and the smoke trail was from a meteorite or something else.

If yes then you accept statements, which means there is no reason also not to believe the description of the object or the impact site - or of more importance the lack of impact site, pointing to a controlled descent - meaning it wasn't a meteorite or russian - meaning either way we haven't been told the truth.

If there is an alternative train of logic or explanation would love to hear it as it will move progress in the case forward, which is what we are after.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Note I said I was only 99% certain no fragments made it to Kecksburg, but if the 1% chance happened and a fragment 32 kilometers high managed to make a right angle turn from northeast to southeast and travel 528 kilometers in the direction of Kecksburg before hitting the ground, then I would expect that fragment to be something like this:


I see other possibilities, just postulating, but this theory includes the reports of a recovered object in Kecksburg...

What if the eyewitnesses claiming to see 'An Extra-Terrestrial Craft' were right...

I'm not saying I'm convinced of this, but go with me for a moment here through the chain of events, from that perspective...

The explosion (instead of being a meteor breaking up upon re-entry) signified a major problem in the craft, and after the explosion, the craft managed to make a right angle turn, coming down in Kecksburg, as opposed to Michigan (as it's earlier descent indicated) and made a semi-controlled landing.

This theory (while I'm not saying it's true, just possible) would be consistent both with the reports of a large object being trucked out of Kecksburg (by some fairly reputable eyewitnesses), and with the lack of recovered impact debris along the projected trail (with the exception of some fallen slag that caught trees on fire).


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
They do seem to consider it a meteor but the explosion at 32km high is quite consistent with the 2008 asteroid explosion at 37km high, and the explosion is well documented in the photos, so we have to consider that they may be right about it being a meteor.


Please believe that I do consider that they may be right about it being a meteor. It's just that the meteor theory doesn't resolve all of the data in the case, so I feel it can't be the entire explanation. It may be, and everyone in Kecksburg who reported a military recovery was wrong...

I'll continue to investigate with you though, until we can draw some firm conclusions!


-WFA



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
Excellent research - star for you.

Forgive me for perhaps being a bit slow but I still do not see what you are trying to say.

Is it that the eye witness reports, local fires and other accounts refer to a meteorite that disintegrated hundreds of miles away but subsequently a totally unrelated large object was found locally ?

Or that two events happened, the meteorite and the coming to earth of a large object, possibly of russian manuafacture ?

I accept and applaud if you do not have a coherent theory currently and are just researching but there must be a particular direction you are heading ?


You're right my research is still ongoing. But I'll repost what I said, I'm not sure why it's unclear:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by chunder
 


You mean these witnesses who identified the object as looking just like a Russian Satellite?



Which confirms the NASA statement it was a Russian satellite?

I don't know what happened that day. But I can't rule out the possibility that a Russian satellite landed in Kecksburg at 6:20am, then a meteor fell a hundred miles or more from Kecksburg at 4:45pm, and the witnesses who saw the meteor went looking for the fallen object thinking it was much closer, and found the Russian satellite, called up some officials, and the officials came to recover it. Your 4 options are not the only possibilities.

Something else could have fallen in Kecksburg that day. But I guess I place less credibility on witness testimony than some because I have read a lot of research about how unreliable witness testimony is. It's very unreliable, and in this case, we even have some witnesses saying that nothing happened in Kecksburg that afternoon. If witnesses are so credible, should we believe them? No? OK then you agree also that some witnesses are not reliable!

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]


So I think something probably was recovered in Kecksburg, but I don't think it had anything to do with the fireball in Detroit at 4:45pm, that was just an event that made them go look for a fallen object nearby. If it was the Russian satellite then it would have fallen at 6:20am which we know from the orbit of that satellite. If it was something else, it could have fallen at any time prior to the meteor.


Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
The explosion (instead of being a meteor breaking up upon re-entry) signified a major problem in the craft, and after the explosion, the craft managed to make a right angle turn, coming down in Kecksburg, as opposed to Michigan (as it's earlier descent indicated) and made a semi-controlled landing.


I'm assuming it was a meteor that exploded near Detroit but I'm open to a very small possibility it might have been something else.

This seems to rule out that the entire "craft" which caused the fireball made a right hand turn, based on witness and photographic evidence:

"A puff of smoke was visible at the terminal end of the train, where reports indicated the major burst occurred. The visible fireball ended at this point, but several observers reported that some material apparently continued beyond, along the original trajectory. This was subsequently confirmed by the photographs (figure 1)"

The Fireball of Dec 9, 1965

Actually I think it was Jkrog and one other person (I don't recall who) discussed that the acorn shape might be an ejection pod from a larger ship. (like a lifeboat is to a ship or a pilot's ejection seat is to the plane ). So taking the idea of a spacecraft exploding over Detroit, and ejecting an escape pod, you might have some possibilities. But based on the description of the object, and the fact it didn't have any signs of a rocket or thruster propulsion system that could have controlled its descent (all the way from Detroit to Kecksburg), it would have to be of some unknown propulsion design, possibly alien.

However given Occam's razor and all that it is far more likely that the explosion in Detroit was just a meteor, and whatever was recovered from Kecksburg was the soviet capsule that fell at 6:20 am which by the way did you notice this in your post?


Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
[Oberg amended his theories in an article published in September 1993 on the OMNI service on America On Line. There, he suggested that the Kosmos 96 theory could account for U.S. Space Command's conclusions that it landed in Canada and also in Kecksburg.]
-WFA


"U.S. Space Command's conclusions that it landed in Canada and also in Kecksburg"???? That's what I was wondering about, as I read another account where they said it came down in Canada and this account mentions BOTH Canada AND Kecksburg, which is possible since there were multiple objects.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join