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.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JrDavis
So I would say that they are closer than 41,000 feet.
The meteor is estimated to have fragmented about 13 miles above the surface. That's a bit more than 41,000 feet.
41,000 feet is what airplanes fly at. This is lower than a plane.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JrDavis
So I would say that they are closer than 41,000 feet.
The meteor is estimated to have fragmented about 13 miles above the surface. That's a bit more than 41,000 feet.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
I'm waiting forward for your evidence. Or any reasonable explanation how someone would measure the distance based on video.
Originally posted by JrDavis
In the video it looks like it is much closer than 41,000 feet.
And that type of camera wouldn't capture details like it did with normal clouds in the stratosphere. Which is 11 miles from the surface.
Your subjective observations of a video are worthless.
In the video it looks like it is much closer than 41,000 feet.
While fragments of the meteor may have produced sonic booms the primary boom was the result of the energy released at the initial fragmentation.
Which was caused by the meteor flying by at extremely high speeds (33,000mph)
Not really relevant but that jet is not exceeding the speed of sound. That is prohibited in populated areas.
Much like a jet moving faster than the speed of sound and breaking the barrier.
Yes, it would. But these are not "normal clouds", you are assuming you know how high they are, and you are assuming the boom is associated with them.
But they are saying this is 13 miles from the surface. Which would mean it would be higher than normal clouds in the air.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
Originally posted by JrDavis
In the video it looks like it is much closer than 41,000 feet.
Based on what?
And that type of camera wouldn't capture details like it did with normal clouds in the stratosphere. Which is 11 miles from the surface.
Which details you are referring to? How do you measure the size of these "details". And what the hell is that "that type of camera" is supposed to mean?
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by JrDavis
The key part was "how do you know the size of those details"? What you see as a detail could be 10km wide. You have no way of measuring that.
Originally posted by JrDavis
Originally posted by PsykoOps
Originally posted by JrDavis
In the video it looks like it is much closer than 41,000 feet.
Based on what?
And that type of camera wouldn't capture details like it did with normal clouds in the stratosphere. Which is 11 miles from the surface.
Which details you are referring to? How do you measure the size of these "details". And what the hell is that "that type of camera" is supposed to mean?
Based on the fact clouds sit in the Stratosphere. Which is 11 miles from the surface.
If the person in this video recorded clouds with the Camera they have. They would not get the detail on those clouds in the Stratosphere like they did with these 2 Contrails.
These contrails look closer than clouds in the stratosphere.
Based on? Common sense? Don't know how else to explain it lol.
The video is 360p. So it wasn't that great of a Cam.
Noctilucent