Man Captures Video Of Strange Explosion In The Sky

reply to post by Phage


You seem to be a very intelligent fella...which makes me wonder..why bother arguing with that fool...

Obviously he doesn't know much...

It's angry birds in space obviously.

Originally posted by Phage
Because astronomers are not meteorologists. They don't have a lot of reason to know what a bursting weather balloon would look like.

I can see that as being a fair argument.

Just like when a Geologist states that the Egyptian Sphinx shows massive amounts of water damage and weathering from a much earlier period say 10,000 years B.C. and Egyptologists disagree.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by alienreality

 

unless exploding weather balloons turn into a cloud of debris after being approached by some other lighted object

Weather balloons turn into a cloud of debris when they reach such an alitude that the expanding gas causes them to burst. The "other" object is the radiosonde swinging around beneath the balloon.

A weather balloon is launched daily from Oakland at about 4:00 PM. On the 20th the wind was mostly SW which would have carried the balloon to Sacramento.

edit on 12/31/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

That does indeed make more sense as to what is seen in the video, except if that was the radiosonde, it did seem to be farther away at first than I would expect, but then I've never seen it before, so I wouldn't know otherwise..
Thanks for the response

reply to post by SLAYER69

No exactly.
In this case the astronomer said he didn't know what it was but that it did not look like an astronomical event.

Originally posted by Phage

Huh? What does that have to do with a bursting weather balloon?

Are you saying that all weather balloons:
1. Explode
2. Become Lost.

Because that was my query regarding sources who can verify a lost balloon resultant from explosion. All balloons would have a degree of accountability to those paying for their construction and use. Who keeps records of weather balloons going up vs weather balloons coming down? That's a lot of money - someone would be tracking them.

Because astronomers are not meteorologists. They don't have a lot of reason to know what a bursting weather balloon would look like.

That is your opinion, just like me saying that mechanical engineers don't have a lot of reason to know about electronics.

reply to post by alienreality

For further reference:

reply to post by Phage


Can you explain those orbs around the object before it "explodes"?

reply to post by Sublimecraft

Are you saying that all weather balloons:
1. Explode
2. Become Lost.

Yes. Though radiosondes are sometimes recovered. Weather balloons are typically launched twice a day from locations all around the country. Including Oakland. Yes, the weather station which launches the balloon tracks it. That's the whole purpose for launching them.

That is your opinion, just like me saying that mechanical engineers don't have a lot of reason to know about electronics.

Not really. An astronomer might be aware of how weather balloons work but that doesn't mean he would know what one looks like when it bursts.

reply to post by rabzdguy

See the video above your post.

reply to post by Phage


Sure it is Phage.

It's a difference of opinion between two sciences. He was asked and he gave his opinion based on his experience in his field. You yourself pointed that he wouldn't have known what it was because it wasn't something he would have known of in his field.

The same goes for the Sphinx. When a Geologist points out what is blatantly obvious to them from experience and the Egyptologist disagrees because it doesn't fit into their paradigm.

One should give the same weight to that logic even when it runs contrary to ones own beliefs.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Sure it is Phage.

How is the astronomer saying "I don't know what it is" a disagreement? Who was he disagreeing with?

Looks like some mechanical object.

Originally posted by Phage
How is the astronomer saying "I don't know what it is" a disagreement? Who was he disagreeing with?

He said which was quoted by another member

"it didn't look like any known astronomical event"

Your reply to that statement was a quick retort..

"In simpler terms, an atmospheric event"

Followed up with

" Because astronomers are not meteorologists. They don't have a lot of reason to know what a bursting weather balloon would look like. "

Apparently you made the distinction between the two fields.

reply to post by Phage

Yes. Though radiosondes are sometimes recovered.

OK - then, although off Topic (somewhat) that answers your question as to why I said the Roswell weather balloon was an exception to the rule.



Doesn't look like this high altitude weather balloon exploded to me.

The United States Armed Forces maintains that what was recovered was debris from an experimental high-altitude surveillance balloon belonging to a classified program named "Mogul"

en.wikipedia.org...

Not really. An astronomer might be aware of how weather balloons work but that doesn't mean he would know what one looks like when it bursts.

I disagree, An Astronomer would be more aware of what a balloon looks like both normally and when it bursts than how one works - his primary job description is looking up and observing, not so much as to how they work.

reply to post by SLAYER69

He said which was quoted by another member

That is not what the astronomer said.

Dr. Maran responded by saying he didn’t recognize the “explosion” as a known astronomical phenomenon. “My personal opinion is that it is not an astronomical event,” he wrote.

You reply to that statement was a quick retort..

Yes. Because if the astronomer was not of the opinion that it was an astronomical event it would have to be an atmospheric event.

Followed up with

Not exactly. That "follow up" was in reply to this statement:

Originally posted by Sublimecraft
One would think he would be somewhat familiar with weather balloon identification and characteristics.

And I will stand by that query. Why would an astronomer be familiar with what a bursting weather balloon looks like?

Apparently you made the distinction between the two fields.

How astute of you to determine that but again, was there a meteorologist with whom the astronomer was disagreeing?

reply to post by Sublimecraft, Phage and Slayer


Not to pick sides, but I found this interesting...

X-ray astronomy

X-ray astronomy is an observational branch of astronomy which deals with the study of X-ray observation and detection from astronomical objects. X-radiation is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, so instruments to detect X-rays must be taken to high altitude by balloons, sounding rockets, and satellites. X-ray astronomy is part of space science.

...under the same source

Balloon flights can carry instruments to altitudes of up to 40 km above sea level, where they are above as much as 99.997% of the Earth's atmosphere. Unlike a rocket where data are collected during a brief few minutes, balloons are able to stay aloft for much longer. However, even at such altitudes, much of the X-ray spectrum is still absorbed. X-rays with energies less than 35 keV (5,600 aJ) cannot reach balloons. On July 21, 1964, the Crab Nebula supernova remnant was discovered to be a hard X-ray (15 – 60 keV) source by a scintillation counter flown on a balloon launched from Palestine, Texas, USA. This was likely the first balloon-based detection of X-rays from a discrete cosmic X-ray source.[5]

Regardless, I too agree that it looks like a weather balloon exploding.

reply to post by Sublimecraft

Doesn't look like this high altitude weather balloon exploded to me.

You are assuming the Mogul balloon exploded at high altitude.

I disagree, An Astronomer would be more aware of what a balloon looks like both normally and when it bursts than how one works - his primary job description is looking up and observing, not so much as to how they work.

I didn't say knowing about weather balloons had anything to do with an astronomers job. Perhaps some astronomers have seen a bursting weather balloon. Apparently Dr. Maran has not, or else he would have recognized it.

Cheers for sorting this out Phage.....Interesting footage and an interesting explanation (the balloon's eye view video is really quite beautiful too).

I really wouldn't bother trying to convince the 'true-believers' with any sort of rational explanation.....That's not what they're here for.

Please lay off the Roswell tat guys.....That tale surely has enough threads of its own and there's really no need to bring it here, especially after you've been offered such a succinct and well supported explanation for the OP video.

See I'm at it now too.....But they still won't listen!

Originally posted by PhageThat is not what the astronomer said.

Dr. Maran responded by saying he didn’t recognize the “explosion” as a known astronomical phenomenon. “My personal opinion is that it is not an astronomical event,” he wrote.

Semantics...

Yes. Because if the astronomer was not of the opinion that it was an astronomical event it would have to be an atmospheric event.

Yes we both agree on this.
No need to beat that horse...

One would think he would be somewhat familiar with weather balloon identification and characteristics.
And I will stand by that query. Why would an astronomer be familiar with what a bursting weather balloon looks like?

Who are you quoting and answering there?

That's not me...

How astute of you to determine that but again, was there a meteorologist with whom the astronomer was disagreeing?

Seriously Phage, A Straw man argument?
You made the distinction between what one should or shouldn't be aware of.
Not me.