Huge meteor explosion over Earth last year went unnoticed until now

a reply to: LookingAtMars

A huge impact difference between the two as well; 440 kt vs 173 kt. Though it was moving much slower, the Russian rock packed a much greater wallop.

a reply to: charlyv

Science might say coincidental, but it is strange.

Statistics don't count for a lot with rare events over short time periods. You're talking about 3 events.

Look at the Moon, where the long term evidence is readily apparent. Look at Mercury.

a reply to: Phage

Sumthuns comin

a reply to: SeaWorthy


No doubt.
Next month maybe.
Next Year maybe.
200 years from now maybe.

a reply to: Baddogma

Since I am adding the 23rd flag to the thread...

I think the Pacific lights were more south than the map shows.

Also thought it was a fishing fleet clearing the sea out...

But unknown fireball is scary. Add not talking about it to us mouth breathers is very disconcerting (thank you autocorrectives!!)

To kick the ball into the weird... if huge space rock has already been found, would they keep their mouth shut?? Reduce the population all Georgia Guidestones like??

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

But unknown fireball is scary.

I think the fact that bolides occur more often than reported is not at all disconcerting, or surprising.

To kick the ball into the weird... if huge space rock has already been found, would they keep their mouth shut?? Reduce the population all Georgia Guidestones like??

How huge? If it's huge enough to affect global population telling people about it wouldn't change a thing.

a reply to: Phage

But the keeping the lid on it is OK?

I find that paternal instinct outdated. Like The Brookings Report.

After all, knowledge is power.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I don't know that a lid would be kept on it.

A lot of people misreport what the Brookings Report actually said.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage
If not this

I think the fact that bolides occur more often than reported is not at all disconcerting, or surprising.

what? Fun?
dis·con·cert·ing
/ˌdiskənˈsərdiNG/Submit
adjective
causing one to feel unsettled.
"he had a disconcerting habit of offering jobs to people he met at dinner parties"
synonyms: unsettling, unnerving, discomfiting, disturbing, perturbing, troubling, upsetting, worrying, concerning, alarming, embarrassing, awkward, bothersome, distracting; More

a reply to: SeaWorthy

what? Fun?

Seems you have set up a false dichotomy.

As I said, it's not surprising. In the least.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SeaWorthy

what? Fun?

Seems you have set up a false dichotomy.

As I said, it's not surprising. In the least.

You also said it is "not at all disconcerting". I can see how it could be little disconcerting.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SeaWorthy

what? Fun?

Seems you have set up a false dichotomy.

As I said, it's not surprising. In the least.

Humm

di·chot·o·my
/dīˈkädəmē/Submit
noun
a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.
"a rigid dichotomy between science and mysticism"
synonyms: division, separation, divorce, split, gulf, chasm; More
BOTANY
repeated branching into two equal parts.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SeaWorthy

what? Fun?

Seems you have set up a false dichotomy.

As I said, it's not surprising. In the least.

You also said it is "not at all disconcerting". I can see how it could be disconcerting.

The stupid "IMHO" is implied.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: charlyv

Science might say coincidental, but it is strange.

Statistics don't count for a lot with rare events over short time periods. You're talking about 3 events.

Look at the Moon, where the long term evidence is readily apparent. Look at Mercury.

I certainly hear that and I am in the camp of random impacts anywhere on Earth, at any given time. I was just commenting that the last 3 notable events were in the same latitudinal regions. Luckily, in very sparse areas of that band.

One could imagine any one of them over a metropolis. Chelyabinsk showed very clearly the synergy of energy vs distance. Then you look at the hundreds of square miles of forest knocked down by big T.

a reply to: charlyv

Yep. They don't even have to hit the ground to cause a ruckus.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: charlyv

Yep. They don't even have to hit the ground to cause a ruckus.

Yes, and since that cannot happen on the Moon as everything hits there, imagine the blasts we have had had in our atmosphere in that time frame.

A mystery for me is why we do not find fossils that are shattered and pancaked, or identify them as such. I think of a catastrophic airburst over say herds of animals. Surely , there must be fossil evidence out there that shows they died that way.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Baddogma
To kick the ball into the weird... if huge space rock has already been found, would they keep their mouth shut?

If it's huge enough to cause destruction of a city, chances are amateur astronomers around the world would've found and tracked it, too, and they would definitely not keep their mouths shut.

Amateur (and professional) astronomers keep a very keen eye on the sky and discover new comets, asteroids, and NEOs all the time.

a reply to: charlyv

Fossils only appear when the right conditions are met, so I don't find it strange that we haven't found (yet) fossils that show victims of an event like that.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: LookingAtMars

I'm sure NASA would have been aware of this. Considering the International Space Station would have easily detected or viewed the explosion. Why would they have kept this information from the public? Unless there are more possible meteors that are on a trajectory course toward earth.

The ISS is only about 200 to 250 miles (320 to 400 km) above the Earth. So it can only see a relatively small part of the Earth at any one time. There was a better chance of the ISS NOT seeing it.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: Phage
Sumthuns comin

Maybe, but I think this shows how many of these things probably went unnoticed in the past when we were not actively looking for them as diligently.

We as a civilization didn't even realize how many of these space rocks were actually out there in the past. Now we know how many (because we are using better equipment to find them), and the number could be disconcerting to some. Although those people who are disconcerted should realize that it's likely rocks similar to this one have been doing this for all thousands of years of human civilization, and the number of threats likely is NOT increasing.

What I mean is, it is highly unlikely that the actual number of threatening meteor/asteroid just started to increase at the exact same time we had the technical ability to track them better. Rather, we are probably just findingthe ones that in the past went totally unnoticed.