The odds of this coincidence are literally far less than one in a million. The naive calculation is based on two like celestial events that independently occur once in a hundred years occurring on the same day:
1/(365*100)^2 = 1/1332250000 Note: that is one in a billion. Discount by a factor of a thousand for whatever your argument is and you are still one in a million. This is not a coincidence. PS: The mass of the Russian meteor has been revised upward by a factor of 1000<http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/> . On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> 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<http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1360947411975.html#comments> >> :**** >> >> "Asteroid DA14's trajectory is in the opposite direction"**** >> >> ** ** >> 180 degrees is pretty far from 90 degrees.**** >> ** ** >> What is your cite, Terry?**** >> >> >> >
