Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Comet is comming fast and huge!!!

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Dragonrider, the USGS doesn't keep charts around for longer than a day or so. I looked at the other earthquake sites for that date (several others around the net), including for non-US sources and nobody notes any really unusual data. A quick dive to one of the lists doesn't show anyone mentioning any unusual data.

When we were in Costa Rica, at the Arenal volcano, we visited their seismograph station and watched (live) as some pretty impressive looking waves marched across the seismgraph. But even though the volcano was only 2 miles away (really!) and the waves were really dancing, we couldn't feel a thing. It was measuring tremors that weren't significant.

So I'm curious for more details of this thing that is being treated globally as a non-event. I did see on one map a deep but not terribly significant event in the Southern Pacific in the past week or so and was wondering if this was it or if there was another one.




posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Phoenix Cross,

From what I know of the situation, NEAT entered the solar system to the celestial "north" or above the plane of the ecliptic (the average plane of orbit that most planets in our solar system share around the sun). It proceeded closer to the plane of the ecliptic as it neared the sun, where it crossed through the plane at an angle (we dont know what the actual angle of attack was, thanks to apparent camera spoofing by NASA) and exited to the celestial "south" or below the plane of the ecliptic.

Now, the comet obviously picked up relative speed during its perihelion. According to NASA (Im reserving comment here) it was to exit the solar system to the south of the ecliptic at a relatively large angle, about 45 degrees heading away from the ecliptic. The date of "encounter" where NEAT would cross the earth orbital sphere (IE, it would cross earths orbit IF earth was that low, or it would be crossing beneath the earth) was somewhere around May 5-12.

Now, consider this as a geometry problem... Given an objects speed, and estimated time for it to reach a point in its trajectory (at a 45 degree angle), how long would it take for the same object at the same speed to reach the same point except at 0 angle? Answer, considerably shorter time.

Was this impact, if that is what it was, a part of NEAT? Possibly, or it could be one of the other close encounters that we have all the time. Me posting that it was a splinter of NEAT was basically a SWAG on my part, and it is quite likely I could have jumped the gun a bit.

Of course, it wouldn't have to be a piece of NEAT.... Last year, we had 3 close encounters (IE, asteroids of a size able to survive reentry to surface impact, all of which crossed within the orbit of the moon)... IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IN ALL 3 CASES, THEY WERE NOT MADE PUBLIC UNTIL AFTER THEY HAD ALREADY DEPARTED EARTH SPACE....

Same thing this year. We have had at least 2 close encounters, crossing within lunar orbit, all of which were announced AFTER they left.... It is also a published fact that US KillSats record upwards of a dozen high atmospheric impacts of asteroids 10-30 meters in size every year, resulting in nuclear yield detonations.



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Byrd,

I do admit to a horrible mistake on this particular post... I failed to save the images I mentioned from the USGS seismo sites. You are correct, they do not keep a running backlog of readings up on their server, so I am unable to show the readings I mentioned. I am currently kicking myself for this oversight as we speak.

I cannot speak to your information regarding foreign seismo sites, as I routinely only check USGS.

As a recap, this is what I observed on the USGS sites (granted I am doing this from memory, which may result in some small flubbed detials, and for some hard core debunkers, this may totally invalidate my arguement, but it appears to be the only thing to go on at the time):

At 0600 UTM, a significant seismic event was recorded out of Admunsen Base, Antarctica. I don't remember the exact size, but believe it was about mag 5.5 or so. About 2 hours later another significant seismic event was recorded off the coast of Oregon. Within an hour or so, other similar seismic events started popping up in a more or less radial pattern around this 2nd event off of Oregon, including activity in the Phillipines, Japan, China, California, and I believe a reading in the New Madrid fault zone.

Granted, none of these events were very large (I remember that the greatest event was the one in Antarctica, and the 2nd greatest was off of Oregon). I believe the Admunsen reading was about mag 5.5, and Oregon was below mag 5, which are not serious temblors at all.

But then, if you read my posts, I estimated from these readings that the impact was probably equivalent to about 10 megatons at most. While this is a huge explosion compared to what we are capable of, this is very small on global scales. I did not see, and would not have expected, massive earthshaking earthquakes, so I really don't understand why you say nothing happened, just because there wasnt a massive mag 7+ earthquake. Even if this impacted directly on the San Andreas or NMFZ I doubt that there would have been serious seismic activity above what was recorded for that day.

My opinion and interpretation of these seismographs was reached after comparing this activity to a seismograph I had seen from the detonation of the Bikini Atoll Hydrogen Bomb in the 50s (believe it was 1954). This detonation was approximately 14 megatons, and to my knowledge is the largest nuclear detonation in history during an above ground test.

The seismograph from this detonation indicated a single massive shock at time of detonation, followed by a few very small aftershocks as the shockwave rebounded off of deeper structures in the crust. There was no significant seismic events recorded around the world, or even realtively near the test site.

My interpretation of the multiple seismographs is as follows: An impact (smaller magnitude of yield than Bikini Atoll, but shaped or focused directionally) near Antarctica, resulting in seismic activity there (expected). The shockwave travels through the planet to arrive approximately 2 hours later off the coast of Oregon, where it would "conduct" along existing fault zones, which are previously weakened areas of the crust, allowing slight movement, and therefore presenting a recordable event (expected). The shockwave then radiates outward, continuing to "conduct" through other associated fault zones as recordable events (again, expected). Meanwhile, a rebounding shockwave arrives back at Antarctica and surrounding stations, approximately 4-5 hours later, showing as an aftershock, but being recordable over a wider area than during the original impact (expected).

Essentially, something impacted the southern hemisphere, and set up a global oscillation, making the earths crust ring like a bell after a sharp strike. Again, as the initial impact was realtively small, it wouldnt cause massive catastrophic events. It DID however create a very coherent chain of significant (signifcantly detectable above background activity) events in a noticeable and traceable direction.

When you combine this with the fact that we have had at least 5 very significant NEO encounters in the past year, and the fact at NORAD admits its KillSats record similar impacts detonating at high altitude, I really don't see why it should be a surprise that something could hit the earth.



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Ahh. Much clearer now.

Earthquakes in and around Oregon are NOT unusual, as surfing around Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network will show:
www.geophys.washington.edu... T/welcome.html

To quote from their welcome page:

Small daily earthquakes, plus occasional felt tremors, remind Pacific Northwest residents of earthquake hazards.


In fact, you can easily see this on their monitoring list of earthquakes... dozens per day, for as long back as you'd care to check.

The USGS shows a moderate quake off the coast of Oregon last week: earthquake.usgs.gov...

And they do show the following earthquake:
magnitude: 5.0
date: 2003/03/07
Time: 22:11:29
lat: 43.556
long: -127.105
depth (km): 10.0
location: 223 km (139 mi) WNW of Bandon, OR

The Palmer facility at Amundsen DOES monitor earthquakes... but they're not getting earthquakes there. So the question is WHERE was that quake and how deep was it?

The "Ring of Fire" (Pacific plate) was fairly active recently: neic.usgs.gov...

...and I do see things that might have been what Amundsen reported.


Originally posted by dragonrider
At 0600 UTM, a significant seismic event was recorded out of Admunsen Base, Antarctica. I don't remember the exact size, but believe it was about mag 5.5 or so. About 2 hours later another significant seismic event was recorded off the coast of Oregon. Within an hour or so, other similar seismic events started popping up in a more or less radial pattern around this 2nd event off of Oregon, including activity in the Phillipines, Japan, China, California, and I believe a reading in the New Madrid fault zone.


Righto- Ring of Fire was active that week. A jolt in one area always leads to other tremblors all along the plate. The ones I looked at were all several km deep inside the crust.


But then, if you read my posts, I estimated from these readings that the impact was probably equivalent to about 10 megatons at most. While this is a huge explosion compared to what we are capable of, this is very small on global scales. I did not see, and would not have expected, massive earthshaking earthquakes, so I really don't understand why you say nothing happened, just because there wasnt a massive mag 7+ earthquake.

Because, geologically speaking, there was nothing unusual about what was happening. You can see the same type of thing happening at frequent intervals.


BTW, you can find meteor shower observations here:
www.imo.net...



My opinion and interpretation of these seismographs was reached after comparing this activity to a seismograph I had seen from the detonation of the Bikini Atoll Hydrogen Bomb in the 50s (believe it was 1954). This detonation was approximately 14 megatons, and to my knowledge is the largest nuclear detonation in history during an above ground test.

The seismograph from this detonation indicated a single massive shock at time of detonation, followed by a few very small aftershocks as the shockwave rebounded off of deeper structures in the crust. There was no significant seismic events recorded around the world, or even realtively near the test site.



That was all they could detect at the time. Instruments have become far more sensitive since that time. I feel I should point out that the pattern you mention is VERY similar to ones generated by regular earthquakes.



My interpretation of the multiple seismographs is as follows: An impact (smaller magnitude of yield than Bikini Atoll, but shaped or focused directionally) near Antarctica, resulting in seismic activity there (expected). The shockwave travels through the planet to arrive approximately 2 hours later off the coast of Oregon, where it would "conduct" along existing fault zones, which are previously weakened areas of the crust, allowing slight movement, and therefore presenting a recordable event (expected). The shockwave then radiates outward, continuing to "conduct" through other associated fault zones as recordable events (again, expected). Meanwhile, a rebounding shockwave arrives back at Antarctica and surrounding stations, approximately 4-5 hours later, showing as an aftershock, but being recordable over a wider area than during the original impact (expected).

Essentially, something impacted the southern hemisphere, and set up a global oscillation, making the earths crust ring like a bell after a sharp strike. Again, as the initial impact was realtively small, it wouldnt cause massive catastrophic events. It DID however create a very coherent chain of significant (signifcantly detectable above background activity) events in a noticeable and traceable direction.

When you combine this with the fact that we have had at least 5 very significant NEO encounters in the past year, and the fact at NORAD admits its KillSats record similar impacts detonating at high altitude, I really don't see why it should be a surprise that something could hit the earth.


No argument, but I question your conclusions on the data. From what I see on my searches, the events were inside the earth and not on it. I haven't exhaustively checked to see where on the planet that the Leonids would strike -- but since it's SUMMER in the southern hemisphere, this means that this part of Earth is pointed TOWARDS the sun... and the meteors aren't being spit out by the sun.

The part of the Earth pointed toward any incoming meteors right now is the NORTHERN hemisphere.

And that's part of why I question your conclusions.



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Blade Runner...with the war on iraq looming and me being a pesimist, i have started to put a survival kit together...

Actually, being pessimistic will help you plan better for worst-case scenarios you may face...If the situation *does* get that bad, at least you're ready for it...If not, then survival will still be that much easier to manage.



Originally posted by The Blade Runner...12 ltrs of water...

Carrying actual water may sound like a good idea, but in reality it's a pain to have to haul around with you...Having *some* water onhand is a good idea, but you'll also need to locate an area that has freshwater available (river, stream, whatever...Not seawater, though) & have the equipment to be able to *filter* it. Also, there are pills that chemically "scrub" water to make it potable as well, to take care of impurites that can get through conventional filters. Not only that, it's *much* easier & more practical to carry around filters & scrubbers than it would be to carry a *useful* amount of water.


Originally posted by The Blade Runner
glow sticks incase the bulb in the torch breaks and i need to change the bulb and need alternative light without being power dependant,

There are "crank-powered" flashlights available...Basically, they generate their power by the user constantly squeezing a lever built into the handle. A pain in the arse to maintain the light for any length of time, but quite useful...There's probably not going to be a lot of circumstances where you can't get by with letting your own eyes adjust to ambient light sources.


Originally posted by The Blade Runner
tinned foods, and foiled wrapped foods nuts ect, about 10 days worth

It's best to learn how to "live off the land" as much as possible...Keep your preserved foods in *reserve* as long as you can, using them only if natural food sources are scarce. Learn how to hunt, trap & fish to keep yourself healthy as possible with a varied diet. If there's a lot of meteor dust & water vapor suspended in the air blocking sunlight for more than just a few days, many food-bearing plants will die off due to lack of sunlight...Then the herds of herbivores will begin to die off from starvation, then followed by carnivorous predators who will become more *aggressive* in competition for food until many of them die off as well. I figure everyone should be *aware* of the possible scenarios that they may face in order to help with the chance to survive. Even if the situation doesn't get that grim, at least it's good to plan ahead for that possibility.


Originally posted by The Blade Runner
a source of fire, matches/lighter more than one probably

It might not be a bad idea to learn how to identify & locate flint (as well as stock a decent supply of it)...Sooner or later, technological items will wear out or become damaged. Practice starting fires with flint, so that you *know* you can still get by without technology if you need to.


Originally posted by The Blade Runner...2 first aid kits...

The importance of simple aspirin & anti-bacterial first-aid cream can *not* be overestimated...Also, learn about natural antibiotics that you can identify in the wild as well...It's nearly impossible to anticipate how much first aid cream you'll need to have available if you need to survive for a long period of time & carrying too much of it would bog you down anyway. For bigger wounds, needle & thread are pretty much mandatory, as painful as that sounds. Rubbing alcohol is also a very useful item...Make sure you have plenty of it, but use it sparingly to make it last longer. Perhaps even learn what you have to set up to be able to distill your own, just in case you wind up "walking the wild side" longer than you originally anticipated.


Originally posted by The Blade Runner...a multitool...

Preferably something that also allows you to cut wood & natural fibers so you can build small shelters & make twine. Some survival knives also contain some fishing gear. For some of the reasons stated above, you may wish to suppliment this supply of fishing gear with some more of your own...


Originally posted by phoenix_cross...assorted tools and supplies etc... hammers, nails, screwdrivers, sword and knives, rope, gun to hunt with, lights and lighters, fire and stuff, even some flint stones if need be, water purifiers err actually part of first aid kit, and a portable radio with batteries and stuff.

Nails can be made of wood, if you're decent with a carving knife...In ancient times, boats (& even sometimes huts) were made with wooden nails. Screwdrivers can be used for a variety of purposes, but you're not likely to find screw to use it on unless you intend to be able to repair your own equipment with it. Portable radio won't do much good if your batteries age long enough to leak their charge or you simply use them up...Put together a small turbine that can be turned by the flow of a stream (You've already mentioned water purifiers, so I'm presuming that you already intend to find a source of freshwater) & make it capable of connetion to a battery charger. If you can get ahold of a solar-powered battery charger, great...But it's likely to be a bit expensive & if the sunlight is blocked by meteor dust & water vapor for a long period of time, it'll be useless.


Originally posted by dragonrider Plait, author of "Bad Astronomy" (Wiley & Sons, 2002) and founder of a web site by the same name, told SPACE.com these latest conspiracy theories share a common trait: "They all have the distinct disadvantage of not being based on facts."

And what is one of the main reasons that the general public lacks these facts? Mainly because it's already been proven & even *openly admitted* by the government & NASA that they will not give the *honest facts* to the public in the first place. They've destroyed their own credibility, then blame the people for ignorance *that they themselves have caused*. It's all just a case of political double-talk...But it's double-talk that someday may well be the herald of human extinction. Humankind would stand a better chance of at least marginal survival if we are at least *aware of the honest facts* & get prepared to attempt survival of a major world-wide disaster. Without the *honest facts*, our chances of survival are drastically reduced. And yet they've destroyed their own credibility...They've cried "wolf" so many times for so long that there's no way that they can be trusted to provide the *honest facts*.

I've also heard of theories that question the fact that we've only just recently been hearing about all kinds of possible impacts & ask if the human race has *always* lived with this kind of danger & why haven't we been extincted before now if the danger has always been so great...etc. Well, studying some astronomy on the galactic scale, I've learned the answers to at least *some* of those questions. In a way, yes, we've *always* faced the same danger but only through modern scientific observation of the galaxy at large & the advent of mass communication has the "average joe" been made aware of it. However, the *level* of the danger has been cyclically consistent, but variable in the *amount* of danger present at any given time.

It seems that, looking at the galaxy as a whole, that our solar system does not stay "level" on it's orbit in the galactic ecliptic plane...Not only do we orbit around the galactic core, but we also "wobble" up & down in relationship to the galactic ecliptic plane itself. It takes about 30 to 35 million years to complete a full cycle of our "wobble" up & down & for the most part, our solar system remains in a relatively sparse void-area.

However, in one of our portions of the "wobble cycle", we cycle our movement into, then out of a "belt" of cosmic debris that orbits around the galaxy with us, lower on the galactic plane than the average medium position that our solar system orbits. Our wobbling orbit takes us down into, then up out of this belt of debris once every 30 to 35 million years. Each time this happens, the gravity well of our solar system tends to pick up a "fresh supply" of cosmic debris...This is where most of our solar-system asteroids & comets comes from.

The good news is that we last passed *out of* that belt of debis about 2 million years ago.

The bad news is that it takes our solar gravity well about 2 million years to pull that supply of fresh debris into the area where our planets orbit the sun...If this information is correct, that means that the "Dino-Killer" was a part of that "fresh supply of debris" that happened to hit Earth about two of our "wobble cycles" ago...Archeologists have dug into evidence that mass extinctions on our planet have occured in cycles about 30-35 million years apart; The "iridium layers" that Dragonrider have mentioned are a key clue to this because such evidence of mass extinction have coincided with galactic "wobble cycles".

The last known great exticntions known to the general public was the end of the dinosaur era about 65 million years ago...Even if we happened to have gotten lucky 30-35 million years ago on our previous trip through the "debris belt" that would only mean that homo-sapiens hadn't evolved at that time to see it; The entire known 2-million-year-old history of homo-sapiens has occured since our most recent trip through the debris-belt...And our "fresh supply" of new debris is due to arrive...This is the explanation that I've gotten that seems to make sense as to *why* we seem to be having a higher rate of "close encounters" in comparison to atronomers' reports from only a few hundred years ago.



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I haven't exhaustively checked to see where on the planet that the Leonids would strike -- but since it's SUMMER in the southern hemisphere, this means that this part of Earth is pointed TOWARDS the sun... and the meteors aren't being spit out by the sun. Posted by Byrd

I would agree with that, and would say if what we saw was in fact an impact event, it would likely NOT be the leonids, as they routinely burn up on reentry, and very seldom survive to surface impact, at least not in any form large enough for that kind of a recorded event.

As far as what would be coming out of the sun? The short answer is anything. All kinds of asteroids make perihelion around the sun and are thrown back out away from it. If anything, such asteroids would have a much better chance of impacting the earth without previous observation because, it would be coming "out of the sun", severly hampering observations. This would be especially true of objects in the 50-300 meter size range, which incidentally, happens to be the size range where asteroids start surviving reentry to surface impact.

Could it have been a piece of NEAT? I honestly dont know, although I believe it to be a significant possibility.

Now, the comet obviously picked up relative speed during its perihelion. According to NASA (Im reserving comment here) it was to exit the solar system to the south of the ecliptic at a relatively large angle, about 45 degrees heading away from the ecliptic. The date of "encounter" where NEAT would cross the earth orbital sphere (IE, it would cross earths orbit IF earth was that low, or it would be crossing beneath the earth) was somewhere around May 5-12

Now, consider this as a geometry problem... Given an objects speed, and estimated time for it to reach a point in its trajectory (at a 45 degree angle), how long would it take for the same object at the same speed to reach the same point except at 0 angle? Answer, considerably shorter time. Posted by DragonRider

As I mentioned on my previous post, the possibility of it being a piece of NEAT was a SWAG on my part. I do however believe we were impacted by something in the southern hemisphere. Although, as I have mentioned several times before, NASA IS NOT HELPING MATTERS BY REFUSING TO SHARE SIGNIFICANT ACCURATE INFORMATION!!!!!!

PS, Byrd, I am very curious about your scientific background....



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 10:38 PM
link   
The last known great exticntions known to the general public was the end of the dinosaur era about 65 million years ago...Even if we happened to have gotten lucky 30-35 million years ago on our previous trip through the "debris belt" that would only mean that homo-sapiens hadn't evolved at that time to see it; The entire known 2-million-year-old history of homo-sapiens has occured since our most recent trip through the debris-belt...And our "fresh supply" of new debris is due to arrive...This is the explanation that I've gotten that seems to make sense as to *why* we seem to be having a higher rate of "close encounters" in comparison to atronomers' reports from only a few hundred years ago. Posted by MidnightDStroyer

I have an entire chapter in one of my textbooks regarding what we currently know about mass extinction events throughout geologic history. Unfortunately, this book is at my office. I will have an informative post prepared by tomorrow night regarding this topic.

In short, what MidnightDStroyer mentions in entirely correct. We have known for several years now that mass extinction events do happen in regular cycles, and have something to do with orbital locations relative to the galaxy. There have been several different theories regarding this, including "death stars", IE, a close exploding supernova releasing vast amounts of gamma and cosmic radiation, killing of large amounts of life on the planet.

The best information we currently have does point to the introduction of cosmic debris into the solar system at regular intervals. Also, this would explain the current spate of NEOs that have been reported (interestingly, they are all reported AFTER they have passed the planet). This may also explain NASAs very pointed silence on the matter.....

The one significant aspect of the cyclic extinction periods that MidnightDStroyer did not include (quite possibly because it is a theory still under contention, and not so well publicized yet) is the apparent existance of extinction supercycles: there are apparently "short term" cycles of extinction, about 30-35 million years, where the extinction events are relatively small. Surrounding these mini-extinction events are larger, much longer term cycles (generally 120 million years or so) where the extinction events are much further reaching.

For example, when Dino-Killer hit, it was estimated to have killed off approximately 40-50% of the species on the planet. The "mega extinction" prior to this killed off approximately 70% of all species.



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Dragonrider... there weren't any surface events.

It's not a meteor/comet/alien spaceship.

It's just slippage on the fault.



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Dragonrider... there weren't any surface events. Posted by Byrd

Slippage on a fault line generally DOES NOT affect other fault lines on the opposite side of the planet. Slippage on a fault line does NOT form a directionally focused compression wave that triggers numerous other fault lines on the other side of the planet.

Yes, it is suspicious that all of the activity would be noticed at known fault lines... however, in an impact event, that is expected. Good solid coherent rock units would easily absorb such a low level shock... but where ever there was a break in this coherency, such as a fault line, is where this compressive energy would be translated into movement, and would therefore be detected on seismographs. Besides, the information gathering system is biased on this basis, as almost all seismographs on the planet are set up to monitor the known fault zones, IE, there are NO seismographs set up to monitor normal non-faulted rock units (although this is the medium that is transferring the compression wave... it would be VERY interesting if such a random system of seismographs were in fact set up).

In my personal and professional opinion, the information I have reviewed DOES NOT indicate an internal seismic event, but rather a HIGH probability of a surface impact event, likely of an object approximately 100-200 meters in size at orbital velocities, from a non-terrestrial origin.



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Byrd, I am very curious as to your scientific background, and experience in geology....



posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 03:12 AM
link   
i know nothing about comets or anything but i gotta admit, some of what your saying seams to make sence



posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Well, Dragonrider, I hold a legit Texas State Teachers' certification and have taught chemistry and physical science along with algebra and calculus.

Some of my knowledge is rusty because I've been working in the IT field as Internet specialist (after being promoted from LAN administrator.) I do have occasional moments of DUH-ism. I couldn't walk cold into a university class and teach the stuff, though there was a time when I did teach some of the above (teaching assistant at Texas Tech University. Yes, I was one of the horrid grad student TA's who make life miserable till you get a full tenured prof to add to your burdens.)

My spouse is a mathemetician with multiple degrees, including a minor in geology. Our "hobby" (one of them) is visiting live volcanos and geologically active areas.

And I've a Master's from the department of Biomedical Engineering at Texas Tech, and am an amateur (very) model rocket maker and amateur stargazer and casual friends with other stargazers and have a nodding acquaintance with some real astronomers. One friend (a writer) spent some time at Amundsen Base -- so I know a bit about what goes on there.

And that's the part of my CV that's relevant to this discussion.



And...

It wasn't a meteor.
It was just a rather typical geological event.
The comet isn't going to hit Earth.



posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 03:28 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Quantifying Meteor False Alarm Rate Within Nuclear Test Monitoring

telling the difference between nuclear tests and meteor impacts is of critical importance today.
Denver - Feb 14, 2003
A Los Alamos National Laboratory researcher is helping to provide an extra measure of confidence in an international array of listening posts that keep an ear out for clandestine nuclear weapons tests.
Doug ReVelle of Los Alamos' Atmospheric, Climate and Environmental Dynamics Group today presented calculations showing the number of false alarms in international monitoring stations that can be attributed to meteors. ReVelle presented his findings at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Denver.

ReVelle and his Los Alamos colleagues operate a series of stations that listen for infrasonic signals - very low frequency sound waves that lie below the range of normal human hearing.

The stations are part of an international monitoring system that is used to detect, among other things, rogue atomic tests. Such tests create infrasonic signals, and researchers can analyze data from the stations to pinpoint the location and even the magnitude of a clandestine blast.

But incoming meteors also create infrasonic signals. When a meteor enters the atmosphere and continues traveling through it, it creates a pressure wave - the infrasonic signal.

The pressure wave is akin to a pressure wave created by an explosion. Because of this, ReVelle often discusses meteor size in terms of explosive yield: the larger the yield, the greater the diameter of the meteor.

Recently, ReVelle teamed up with researchers from Sandia National Laboratories, the University of Western Ontario, ET Space Systems and U.S. Space Command and looked at sound and light signatures from large meteors that had entered the atmosphere during the last eight years. From these data, the researchers were able to more precisely calculate the size and energy of incoming meteors.

In addition, ReVelle was able to calculate the frequency of meteor encounters with the atmosphere. A meteor that's 100 feet in diameter - with the energy equivalency of a one-megaton explosion - enters the atmosphere about every 100 years. But smaller meteors enter more frequently.

ReVelle looked at the number of meteors in the one-kiloton energy range (or meteors just under 10 feet in diameter) to determine the number of false alarms that might be seen on international monitoring stations worldwide. Based on his calculations, ReVelle found that individual monitoring stations would see, on the average, about five meteor signals a year.

"This research will help give added confidence to the international monitoring system," ReVelle said.




And just to make one point crystal clear....



ReVelle looked at the number of meteors in the one-kiloton energy range (or meteors just under 10 feet in diameter) to determine the number of false alarms that might be seen on international monitoring stations worldwide. Based on his calculations, ReVelle found that individual monitoring stations would see, on the average, about five meteor signals a year.

What do you think?



posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Of course, it could be something besides an asteroid... but it was still likely an impact of some type.....

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Byrd,

BS Geology, emphasis on petroleum geology, minor in anthropology

Experience in petroleum geology, seismic reflection surveys, geotechnical studies, geological resource exploration and management, landfill design studies (hey, you do what you have to during the lean years!) and environmental geology.


I am sorry but I beg to disagree, it was NOT a seismic event. I think I have posted significant information to show the unlikelihood of this being an internal seismic event.

Besides the fact that, as has been pointed out by numerous news postings, as well as several other ATS members, NASA has admitted they *will not* tell us the truth should such an asteroid be found to be incoming to the planet. At the very least, this raises serious doubts as to NASAs future credibility. In addition, the very mysterious outages of many related websites, including ATS on Feb 18 only serves to confirm that something highly suspicious is coming from NASA. (Please note that I am not addressing the original claims that NASA faked photos ect... I reserve judgement on that, but I do find NASAs actions highly suspect...)

Yes, I have heard the snow storm explaination, and it just doesnt hold water. It is common federal government action to cover up what they can, and when caught in a cover up to discredit those who ask questions... if they cannot be discredited, they change the rules (sometimes they try change the physical science) to fit thier story....

NASAs story just dont add up...
The idea of an internal seismic event based on the information reviewed, just dont add up....



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 04:34 AM
link   
what we need dragon is un-denyable proof that something is coming and nasa has covered it up, if this is what is going on..

i mean if there was some tangeble evidence, maybe nasa footage or something, then maybe we can do something about it, i mean there must be a deccent way of spreading yours/others findings, what would really help is if somebody at nasa, who knows something and does not agree with the coverup (if one exsists, im not debunking it because i am open minded to situations like this, i belive its well within the boundrys of possibilty) to help get some information out and help us, because really all we want to do is inform people and give them a chance, everybody deserves the truth, thats why people follow religion and people go after conspiracy theorys, we just want the truth, its just a shame this planet is manipulated by a few rich people who tell us lies all the time...

peace and keep chasing this if exsists, the more people we have trying to find some truth the better chance we have..

The Blade Runner



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The "NASA won't tell" is an urban legend.


Here's the REAL source of that:
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2003/02/15/wsci2 15.xml

Please note that it's a scientist... ONE scientist, and not a policy maker and that they're at the Rand corporation. Not NASA. The press hopped on it and people who didn't read closely thought "space scientist = NASA" when NASA had no part in it.

(didn't we debunk that one already????)



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 07:35 PM
link   
what we need dragon is un-denyable proof that something is coming and nasa has covered it up, if this is what is going on.. Posted by Blade Runner

I would agree with this very much. However, the one thing that the fed gov has done an exceptional job at is learning how to cover things up... and in such a situation involving a great deal of science and hinging on things that are not observable by the general public (who likely doesnt completely understand the science of the situation anyway) it is only that much easier.

The average person on the street doesnt look at comets, especially ones that require a high order observatory to find, and wouldnt begin to know how to calculate an orbital trajectory even if they could properly observe it. In those cases, they place 100% faith on NASA and other assorted scientists to tell them the truth... if they didnt tell them the truth, how would the average guy on the street know the difference? About the only way would be to wait until something DID fall on them!

Yes, I did mention other assorted scientists, and Im sure Byrd will comment on this, regarding the unlikelihood of being able to cover up all the amateur astronomers across the world. If, MAYBE, it were an event that was able to be easily observed by astronomers with lower grade equipment than that owned by NASA, then people would be able to start asking meaningful questions regarding where exactly an object is heading.

As it is, regarding NEAT and several other similar objects, there is the issue of exactly how to observe them. About 80% of all telescopes capable of resolving an object say 500 meters or smaller within 1 lunar unit (distance between the earth and moon) are owned and operated by NASA, ESA, or otherwise affiliated with them to some degree (usually in a financial form, which gives NASA at least some control over the functions of the equipment in question). Of course, there is Hubble, but that is 100% controlled by NASA. The former soviet block? 100% controlled by the Russian Space Agency, and much tighter controlled than any western agency. The only other credible observation platforms for detecting such an object would be space based, IE, spy sattelites or the US KillSats (only able to detect an impact), but again, 100% controlled by the government.

Yes, that leaves 20% of telescopes globally controlled by private (at least partially so) parties. Yes, there is of course the chance that an amateur astronomer with a homebuilt 2 meter telescope may detect something that is a potential impact threat. In that case, the discreditation mechanism moves in.

Case in point: last year an amateur astronomer went public with information that an asteroid had been found, and calculated the orbit to intersect with the earth in 2022 (collision). Within 24 hours, NASA went public and said that there had been an error in the astronomers calculations, that it would be a near miss in 2022, but no impact. This object is listed on the NEO site with a Torino threat level of 1 (not an impact threat but requires close observation).

In this case, I find a couple of things suspicious. First, why did an amateur astronomer come public with this finding first, before NASA? Certainly, he could have simply found it before NASA did, but considering he found it with a 400mm telescope and NASA missed it with its much larger scopes, I have a red flag going up. Also, NASA immediately discounting his data??? What happened then? It disappeared from the media. NO ONE QUESTIONED THAT NASA MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG AND HE WAS RIGHT!!!!!! As soon as NASA blesses something, it is engraved in stone... Even if the astronomer was to publicly release his data, so what? Is the average joe on the street going to duplicate his math to find a potential error???

Please note that it's a scientist... ONE scientist, and not a policy maker and that they're at the Rand corporation. Not NASA. The press hopped on it and people who didn't read closely thought "space scientist = NASA" when NASA had no part in it. Posted by Byrd

Thats true, it was a SCIENTIST, but it wasnt a policy maker. Although the EXACT SAME STATEMENT was released by 2 NASA (not consultants) scientists (dont have the articles on me, but will find and post them). In any event, you statement does NOT give ANY credibility to NASA, as the Rand Corp is a very large and well connected consulting firm closely associated with NASA (similar in relationship to the CIA/FEMA/Area 51 and Wackenhutt). Regardless of if that statement did come from NASA or Rand, it means the exact same thing, and carrys the same weight, as that IS Nasas policy...

Combine that with the facts posted earlier regarding the known and documented history of high altitude impacts from meteors, and the calculations as to thier frequency, I REALLY dont feel very comfortable having NASA decide whether or not to tell us if we are going to face a life or death situation. (I guess I shouldnt be surprised that they would keep it quiet... the panic that ensues might hamper the NASA honchos and the Cabal from getting to thier deep reinforced bunkers in a timely manner).



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 07:55 PM
link   
all this is very concerning and interesting, however i'm simply too carefree to get nervous. it seems as everyday there is the coverup of 'mass extinction' nuclear war, or other stuff. hell, earlier on another board i heard the black hawk accident right here in fort drum was a terrorist attack. complete BS. that was anyway. i along with most people have come to the point where i watch this for further developments, but don't mark it as a big problem. once things start falling into place and information is produced to increase likelyhood of something happening i will take more care. i will be and remain prepared, and i will pay attention. thanks goes out to everyone, dragonrider and energy wave mostly, along with the others who kept everyone informed on this situation. most of the stuff yall are discussing is beyond me though...





new topics




 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join