Divers Find No Trace of Meteorite in Urals Lake

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Daaaa..ha ha, tooo dang cold to be underwater looking for space rocks or whatever........ Damage is done, lets just wait till the weather permits....... they hain't going nowhere...




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by McTurbo

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by redshoes
 


So what are you saying Phage, that the hole in the ice has nothing to do with the fragments that may have fallen to earth?
I'm saying it may not. And the fact that no fragments have been found on the lake bed would be a strong indication of that. It would have to be a large fragment to create a hole that size.
edit on 2/16/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


notice them recovering fragments from the ice around the hole. would you expect a bunch of small pebbles to make a hole like that? there had to be something more substantial to do that than just small rocks and if it made a relatively symmetrical hole it should be directly under it. how deep is that spot in the lake? what is the bottom made of?

www.news.com.au...


it wasn't the rock that made that hole.. that could be made from something the size of a fist to a basketball sized rock impacting the ice, going through it.. then through the water pulling air in behind it due to its great speed (basically vaporizing the water its immediate passing through.. (go watch a slow motion ballistics test of them shooing a 50 caliber through a water bottle...)).. the water reacts violently and rushes to close that vacuum fairly fast.. thrusting the surrounding water into and back up the hole that was created (ever thrown a large rock in to a lake? same principal just alot faster) ..the blow back from the water filling back in is what thrust the ice up and outwards in a 10-20 foot radius as seen from the surrounding ice chunks around the hole.


you may know what you mean but you are not expressing it clearly enough for me to either argue or agree with you and not to mention you assume I have no clue how impacts work and also not to mention your analogy with the fifty cal going through plastic is not even close to accurate

www.reuters.com...

"NASA estimated the meteor was 55 feet across before entering Earth's atmosphere and weighed about 10,000 tons.

It exploded miles above Earth, releasing nearly 500 kilotons of energy - about 30 times the size of the nuclear bomb dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima in World War Two, NASA added.

"We would expect an event of this magnitude to occur once every 100 years on average," said Paul Chodas of NASA's Near-Earth Object Program Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

"When you have a fireball of this size we would expect a large number of meteorites to reach the surface and in this case there were probably some large ones.""
edit on 17-2-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
the shape of the object doesnt determine the shape of the hole. the "object" that went through could have been shaped like a pretzel with spikes sticking out that look like the jackson 5 and it would still have left a round hole cause it impacted WATER that thrust UPWARDS after impact to shatter the ice and toss it up and out of the hole in a "radius" .. (that means circle)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
No debris found because there was no debris.

3 anti-christs


1st - Napoleon
2nd - Hitler
3rd - Mabus

It was the arrival of the third anti-christ Mabus.

A lot of the media have described the meteor as being the size of a bus. Mabus = am Bus

It was predicted he would come from the sky , the king of terror.

2013 the unluckiest year for the human race
edit on 17-2-2013 by lacrimaererum because: (no reason given)


it looks from the video that they were recovering small black rocks from the ice around the edge. what are they made of? is this just stock footage they put out there or is this the actual recovery effort? how can we be sure this footage has anything to do with what actually happened?

economictimes.indiatimes.com...

edit on 17-2-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by McTurbo
the shape of the object doesnt determine the shape of the hole. the "object" that went through could have been shaped like a pretzel with spikes sticking out that look like the jackson 5 and it would still have left a round hole cause it impacted WATER that thrust UPWARDS after impact to shatter the ice and toss it up and out of the hole in a "radius" .. (that means circle)


that's right the trajectory determines the shape and notice how symmetrically the chunks of ice are scattered around it www.aljazeera.com...
edit on 17-2-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
well there in lies information neither of us have.. what angle and speed was it going when it had final impact, how much mass was left to the object when it impacted.

let me sum up my arguement.

something hit the water hard and fast, with enough impact to cause the water to surge back upwards with enough force to create a 15-20 foot hole in the ice and throw said ice from 1 inch to 10 feet away from the hole in all directions. in my opinion this would have to be a small meteorite traveling at high speeds as a large one would have done much more intensive damage.. had the meteor of hte size of the hole hit the ground traveling at the speed estimated of this one. we would have had a kinetic impact event .



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I'm with Phage on this one. There's something about that nice, neat hole in the ice that just doesn't "jibe" with the physics of the situation. People have been known to hoax meteorite falls. No question a small asteroid entered the atmosphere and burned up, shattering glass with the acoustical energy of its passage, but I'm not sure how much of it reached the ground intact. A stony meteorite would have broken up, hitting the ice like a shotgun blast.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
If the meteorite had struck the ice it would have left a small hole and fracture cracks spreading out from the hole. There's no way something traveling at that velocity on an angle doesn't leave cracks beyond the hole and instead leaves a perfectly round hole cut with laser precision.
edit on 17-2-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
How to explain it simply so that all can understand? I'll try.

1. If you throw a boulder from the shoreline in the ice lake, you will crack the ice sheet, but no hole.

If you use a HIGH SPEED DRILL, to drill a hole in the ice, you get a nice round hole.


2. If you throw a stone into water, you will notice its entry is angular, as your throw is a trajectorize free hand shot. YET, the ripples are circular, not oblong or in any different shape. Ripples from water bodies take its circular shape at the POINT of impact and water flow, and not determined by the angle of impact. Moving objects ON the surfaces of water are a different thing as they create different types of ripple.

The meteorite most certainly came from an angled trajectory. But remember, it is travelling at high velocity and is burning still, at its impact upon ice. The weight and HIGH SPEED of the meteorite DRILLED a hole, but the GASEOUS HEAT of the meteorite radiated outwards in a CIRCULAR manner to carve and melt out the hole at the POINT of impact.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall
If the meteorite had struck the ice it would have left a small hole and fracture cracks spreading out from the hole. There's no way something traveling at that velocity on an angle doesn't leave cracks beyond the hole and instead leaves a perfectly round hole cut with laser precision.
edit on 17-2-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)


let me try a different approach. you ever seen a gun shot at a paper target? what happens.. you get a hole roughly the size of a bullet in the paper correct? why is this.. why isnt the whole paper ripped apart and shreaded in all directions? .. the reason is theirs nothing behind the paper but air and much futher back some form of padding to absorb the bullet (we dont want it bouncing back toward the shooters do we!)

now the paper doesnt tear in large jagged sheets because the bullet is moving so fast that its hit and gone through the paper so fast that the paper doesnt have time to absorb the energy of the bullet before its gone. leaving a nice neat hole for you to say hit or miss with.

this is not much different than the ice on that lake. its simply a larger piece of paper.. against a faster moving bullet.

The fireball cutting through the sky over Russia traveled at a speed of 30 km per second, according to Russian space agency Roscosmos.

30 km per second is faster than any bullet ever created.. simple conversion would be roughly 15 miles per second.. our fastest bullet only goes roughly 3000 feet per second.. thats a massive massive difference in speed in the meteors favor..when the meteor meets that 4 inches of ice.. it will be through and past it before the ice even reacts to it being there..(nice neat little hole) the difference is the air the meteor is draging behind it.. which is really really violent. it hits the water is drawn in and causes a vacuum of sort.. the water then back fills quickly and causes an explosion of air and water back up the hole forcing out all that air back up through the ice creating a hole with particles of ice blown outwards as we see in this picture.

to give you an idea.. if their was 100 feet of water beneath that ice.. the meteor would have impacted and gone through that 100 feet of water and hit the ground beneath it in less time than it takes you to blink.. remember 15 miles per second...
edit on 17-2-2013 by McTurbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Irish Matador
 

Yes me too, and one other is trajectory seemed more like an approach landing coming in really hot.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The picture was taken from the west or its been flipped. Both the hole and debris fields are symmetric, the edge of the hole looks like it was cut by a fisherman. No conclusion from me.

Some days you're the bug some days you're the mug.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by McTurbo
well there in lies information neither of us have.. what angle and speed was it going when it had final impact, how much mass was left to the object when it impacted.

let me sum up my arguement.

something hit the water hard and fast, with enough impact to cause the water to surge back upwards with enough force to create a 15-20 foot hole in the ice and throw said ice from 1 inch to 10 feet away from the hole in all directions. in my opinion this would have to be a small meteorite traveling at high speeds as a large one would have done much more intensive damage.. had the meteor of hte size of the hole hit the ground traveling at the speed estimated of this one. we would have had a kinetic impact event .


I get what you're saying but I don't think the part after this, "something hit the water hard and fast", is accurate. found this and thought it was interesting. just goes to show what you think might happen is not always what does happen. especially when dealing with the curious properties of water

edit on 17-2-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
There is another consideration here that needs to be taken into account.

Russia is a wash in dash cams, this so called dash cam culture has been called "Russia's last hope for civility and survival on the road." Police and government corruption as a driving force behind the Russian dash cam explosion.

It's entirely possible that fragments of this meteor have been found but finding such a historical remnant would be like winning the lottery. Even a fragment the size of your fist could be worth hundreds of thousands dollars or more depending on composition. This could make any findings public, very dangerous.

I think in time if any fragments exist the last man standing will come forward.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


OF COURSE! The round impact crater in Arizona was also dug out (clearly a fake) as were all of the circular craters on the moon, etc.

Take a break, Phage. Things were so much better when your mommy took away your computer privileges and you disappeared....



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Or maybe the hole was cut with a chainsaw.


Said this to my wife first time I saw it.
If that meteorite his the ice with that much force, it would be like a large rock thrown through a _

I'm talking cracks everywhere, shards of ice all over, and a very disturbed looking surface.

This looks better than some of the holes I make into my paper with a hole-puncher.

We'll call this meteor the "cookie cutter".

- Lee



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mandella1099
OF COURSE! The round impact crater in Arizona was also dug out (clearly a fake) as were all of the circular craters on the moon, etc.


I don't see the connection.

Impacting a hard surface, and impacting a sheet of ice over a body of water with an object weighing about 7,000 tons and traveling 12 miles per second will likely give you two different looking impact areas. If I throw a baseball into the ground the impact is going to look circular obviously, but if I throw it through a window there is likely to be more of a "shatter" effect and less of a perfect hole. For obvious reasons.

Now it IS possible this meteor did punch a perfect circle in the ice, but I also wouldn't be surprised if this was to cover up some sort of weapons test failure.

That doesn't sound unusual to me at all considering how corrupt, dishonest, and prideful the Russia government currently is.

I don't know how anyone could trust the Russian media so easily.
Not that the American media is all that much better, but still.

- Lee



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This hole and the condition of the ice around it does NOT match up with the damage that is to be expected at a highly energetic impact event.

The meteorite had a weight of around 10.000 metric tonnes at impact and hit with a velocity of 18.000 meters per second.
At that velocity, it would have a kinetic energy of (10.000,000 x 18.000) 1.620.000 Gigajoules which has the equivalent force of a 400 Kiloton nuke. That's 20 times bigger then the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Where is all the damage that is to be expected from such massive transitions of energies? Are we supposed to believe that this tiny microscopic little hole is supposed to have went through transferring such insane amounts of energies?


IT--
edit on 17-2-2013 by edog11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Thats what I said.... surely the Ice would have shattered in all directions, making it impossible for anyone to be walking on it.

If this rock was burning hot (which is probably the case when hitting the ground/ice) is it not possible to disintegrate being in such a cold spot??

If you put some hot poker stick into a tub full of Ice, it will just go straight through.... and if you put an ice cube into a pan of boiling water, it will just melt (in 1 or 2 seconds)...



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by edog11
This hole and the condition of the ice around it does NOT match up with the damage that is to be expected at a highly energetic impact event.

The meteorite had a weight of around 10.000 metric tonnes at impact and hit with a velocity of 18.000 meters per second.
At that velocity, it would have a kinetic energy of (10.000,000 x 18.000) 1.620.000 Gigajoules which has the equivalent force of a 400 Kiloton nuke. That's 20 times bigger then the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Where is all the damage that is to be expected from such massive transitions of energies? Are we supposed to believe that this tiny microscopic little hole is supposed to have went through transferring such insane amounts of energies?


IT--
edit on 17-2-2013 by edog11 because: (no reason given)


the meteor broke up.. this was a "piece" of the meteor not the whole thing.. hence the huge explosion in the sky that shattered al those windows. if a 10,000 pound meteor hit the ground at 15 miles per second you would be looking at a nuclear level event more than likly... (but no radiation).. this object probally weighed in the area of 20-100 pounds and was no bigger than a basketball or some such.





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join