Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because it did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something?
A *kinetic energy penetrator* (also known as a *KE weapon*) is a type of ammunition <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition> which, like a bullet<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet>, does not contain explosives <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive> and uses kinetic energy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy> to penetrate the target. Stewart On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> James Bowery wrote: >> >> At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the >>> confirmation I need to summarily reject the "sheer coincidence" explanation >>> with just the two events. >>> >> >> It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that >> something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks >> affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot >> prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many >> undiscovered rocks in space. > > > I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. > > By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation > that is at least as plausible as "sheer coincidence" then one has to > behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have > witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological > ramifications. > > By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline > demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, > whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the "sheer > coincidence" hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. > > I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an > artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the "sheer > coincidence" hypothesis. > > Apparently you missed it: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg77055.html > > The least plausible aspect of this explanation is that a government could > actually keep deep cover on the expenditure of a few tens of billions of > dollars. All the technologies required are Apollo era, preliminary studies > are published in peer reviewed journals decades old and the motive > presented by the Reagan Administration's SDI leading up to the START treaty > is clear. Means motive and opportunity galore. >
