Notice that several independent contrails formed before the explosion
as separate pieces moved through the atmosphere at slightly different
speeds and locations in space. The object appearing to come from
behind could be a piece of the meteor that had come off earlier and
appeared to moved into the video frame at that time. Because it is
impossible to tell from the video whether both objects were at the
same distance from the observer, the second object was most likely a
part that moved slightly faster than the main part, but was many feet
more distant from the observer. This is an example of the imagination
being controlled by what a person wants to see or has been told to see.
I suspect a swarm of smaller objects were in orbit around the big
asteroid, a few of which hit the earth. Only the one hitting Russia
was big enough to be noticed because it came in over land. The
direction of approach would be determined by where in the orbit around
the asteroid the object was at the time of collision with the earth.
Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 1:16 PM, James Bowery wrote:
I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object
approaching from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and
direction to the ejection of fragments with its disappearance into
the main mass. Yes, we're talking delta-velocities that are outside
of plausible explanation by ballistic missiles or any other known
propulsion technology. Ignoring the out-going fragments, the most
plausible explanation I can come up with for this approach-from-
behind object is modification of the source footage. An optical
artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the
expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical
artifact that would also explain those fragments.
There are a few statistical anomalies surrounding the celestial
events -- which may be explained independently but taken as
independent events seems to multiply their probabilities towards zero:
1) Regardless of whether detection of asteroids has just recently
become advanced enough to detect those on the order of 50m passing
inside of geostationary orbit, we have the phenomenon of the first
public announcement of such an event (Asteroid 2012 DA14) making its
closest approach on Feb 15, 2012.
2) The shockwave from the Feb 15 Russian meteor was sufficient to
cause widespread physical damage in populated areas and such intense
shockwaves correlated with meteoric fireballs have not been reported
for decades.
3) The vectors of these two objects -- asteroid and large meteor --
appear statistically independent.
It is difficult to assign an independent probability to #1 since
we're potentially talking about a once-in-history phenomenon
relating not to the mere close-passage of a sizable asteroid -- but
rather to the phenomenon of public announcement.
It is easier to assign an independent probability to #2 since it is
hard for such a large shockwave to go unreported if the meteor
enters over land, and by taking into account the fraction of Earth's
surface that is land we can increase the expected frequency only a
few fold at best.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
What is so unusual about this video? The meteor exploded, which sent
fragments in all directions, including straight ahead as the video
shows. As for shooting down an object slowing from 17000 mph in the
atmosphere, where is the common sense?
Ed
On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
octPHs9gcs&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
NASA failed to mention the surprising activity that seems to show
up in this Russian video, in slo-mo.
The video could have been altered - with the addition of a fast
moving object that seems to impact with the object to make it
explode (at about 27 seconds).
Since the original story of a missile shoot-down came from Russian
military, why not give it some credence?
Unless of course it can be shown that this video was altered.
NASA's blog states:
"Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"
180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.
What is your cite, Terry?
