496 Ton Meteorite

reply to post by Pajjikor

Hi Pajjikor,

ET's take care of most objects, a clean sweep takes place on a regular basis. They do take care of business well.

Best Wishes!





[edit on 3-2-2010 by ET_MAN]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I understand grazers but this was in our Earths atmosphere.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

a commercial flight flies at the highest 40 000 feet or 12.19200 kilometers
the object was a mile or so above them

once a meteor enters the earth stratosphere its not leaving, so this couldnt be a grazer the fact that it was flying level means that it has to be something with an engine

Anybody in the market for a metorite. We have an 880 pound one that we found on our property it's in Chicago being studied and classified right now but headed for Ebay soon. Really just send a pm

if your looking for money go to nasa, but stay off this thread.

Originally posted by Pajjikor
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I understand grazers but this was in our Earths atmosphere.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

a commercial flight flies at the highest 40 000 feet or 12.19200 kilometers
the object was a mile or so above them

once a meteor enters the earth stratosphere its not leaving, so this couldnt be a grazer the fact that it was flying level means that it has to be something with an engine

Well maybe it's not officially a "grazer" but just close to being a grazer, because I agree with you at an altitude of only a mile above the 747, it's not going to leave the Earth's gravity.

However, I don't know of any reason why a shallow angle of entry couldn't produce a level (or so close to level the pilot perceived it that way) trajectory at that altitude, without any engine.

As CHUD said the physics or aerodynamics of meteors in the atmosphere is a little uncertain. I'm still not sure if they can skip off the atmosphere, but I think some can have some aerodynamics.

For example, see this photo of a meteorite showing Regmaglypts:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2b162d766098.jpg[/atsimg]
www.solarviews.com...

This meteorite fell in 1924. Notice the depressions on this sample. These are called regmaglypts and are most likely paralled to the air flow direction during the flight of the meteorite. (Copyright Calvin J. Hamilton)

The interesting thing about the regmaglypts is that they suggest some stability of the orientation of the meteor as it heats up in the atmosphere! This may be unusual but if you can get this kind of stability of the orientation, then the shape of the meteor could affect the airflow and I wouldn't even say generating some kind of lift or other movement is impossible but I don't think any lift is needed at 45000 feet, it could still be a shallow entry angle and still slowing down from that and still appear relatively level, I think. But as I said earlier, that is lower than I would expect for level flight of a meteor, but I hesitate to say that just because I didn't expect it, that it can't happen, as apparently, it DID happen!

@mikellmikell

You have to contact the site owners to for permission to place ads like that so it's not just this thread where such advertising is not allowed unless the site owners have authorized it. Sounds like a nice find though.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


So you are still sticking with it being a meteor?? Not saying it impossible but from what i heard on the video just highly improbable.

Id like to point out that it was above a military base, and even though the military dispatch guy said it wasn't theirs doesn't mean he was telling the truth. could be a top secret project.

reply to post by Pajjikor


Am I 100% sure it was a meteor? No, I'm rarely 100% sure of anything. Close to that but a little less than 100%.

The reasons I would think a military craft is unlikely are many:

Military craft still generally tend to have navigation lights, and there were no navigation lights and no strobe. But even more important than that is the huge green smoke trail coming off the back. I suppose if the craft is malfunctioning it could leave a smoke trail but why would it be green? The colored smoke tends to point to a meteor rather than a military craft.

It was also outside the military operating zone, in addition to the fact the military controller said the military operations had ended earlier, but I know what you mean, if it had looked more like an aircraft I wouldn't hesitate to suspect him of lying about it, especially if it was a secret project. But given that most secret projects that have been declassified like the F117 were aimed at stealth, the long green smoke trail coming out the back just doesn't fit with a secret military project.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I believe they are uncommon, and so much so that the idea of a meteor in horizontal flight seems to be a foreign concept to many people.

Yes. I agree 100%. I've had to explain this to many people before, and even then, many have trouble grasping the concepts involved.

That reminded me of this video of a pilot sighting an object in horizontal flight and says it can't be a meteor because it's impossible for a meteor to do that. However I suspect for a time that horizontal flight is exactly what grazers would do, though I would have guessed at a higher altitude. What do you think, do you think they saw a meteor?

I would bet my bottom dollar that they saw a meteor. I have seen a few similar reports from pilots before (at least 1 or 2), and I'm sure they can all be explained by meteors.

This sighting in particular, has all the hallmarks of a meteor...

I think the timing was no coincidence. The sighting occurred on the 18th November at 03:23 UT over Long Island. NY. This translates to 22:23 local time on the 17th since NY is 300 minutes behind GMT/UT (can you confirm?).

Now the date and time immediately caught my attention because it coincides (more or less) with the peak of the Leonids meteor shower, which is a known prolific producer of grazers.

Checking Mikhail Maslov's Leonid predictions that are based on computer models, we can see that in 1995 the peak of the Leonids was calculated to be at 19 UT 17 November, which is only 8 hours before the pilot saw the UFO.

Further checking shows that the Leonid radiant was on the horizon at the time of the sighting, which is important since grazers can only occur when the shower radiant is on (or close to) the horizon.

The description (bright light at the front and green tail/"contrail") also perfectly fits a meteor.

Having seen many grazers myself (mostly Leonids), I know how "unreal" they can seem to appear, and that they can easily catch out those who have never seen them before.

However, there is one "fly in the ointment"... since the Leonid radiant was low at the time, this means that any meteor appearing to travel parallel with the horizon, would have had to be at the same height above the horizon as the radiant. I can only model the scene with my software from the point of view of the observer being on the ground, but an observer at altitude would see the radiant as being higher above the horizon than one observing at sea-level. So I think this may help explain this aspect, but as we both know, estimating things like apparent altitude is virtually impossible, so I think this case is still easily explainable with a meteor.

Regarding the green color, the FAQ that CHUD posted for us says something about green:

You're right (sort of), but that is only part of the story...

Colors in meteors are not as straight forward as it may seem.

People always forget that meteors can't burn (not enough oxygen at altitude). Light is produced by a glowing plasma that surrounds the meteor. This plasma is created when air molecules smash into the meteoroid (or the other way around if you prefer). Light is emitted when electrons (previously elevated to a high energy state or "excited" by the collission) snap back to their previous "non-exited" state, giving off a photon of a certain wavelength, depending on the element involved, and the energy involved (I'll come back to this later).

Whilst the process (ablation) strips off the surface layers of the meteoroid, and breaks apart the molecules into ions (plasma), much of the plasma is composed of ions from the atmosphere, and this plays a major part in the color, especially with higher velocity meteoroids...

Most meteors "default" to colorless (white), until they are big/bright enough for color to be perceived. When a very fast meteoroid hits the atmosphere, the energy imparted to the ions surrounding the meteoroid can become enough to elevate electrons to still higher energy levels, and in this state, photons of different wavelengths are emitted than those emitted in lower-energy collisions.

In practice, what this means is that a meteor that would usually default to white because of it's size (not enough ablated meteoroid material for the "composition of the object to be revealed") will show colors because of it's velocity.

This is what happens with many of the better known annual meteor showers. The Leonids (71 km/s) and Perseids (64 km/s) are at the upper end of the spectrum, and are probably the best known examples.

If you look at photographs of Leonids or Perseids (which you may have seen in my previous posts), you can see that many meteors start out green, turning to yellow, and then orange/red.

There are still some gaps in our understanding of what is going on, since in some years Leonids and Perseids don't show colors like they do at other times, but when they do, these colors coincide with the most prevalent atmospheric gases at certain heights in the atmosphere.

We know that at high altitude, about 100km (where meteors first become visible), oxygen is more prevalent than nitrogen, and high energy collisions with oxygen make the resulting plasma emit photons at the Auroral Green line 0I at 5577A or 557.7 nm.

This is what you are seeing when you look at a train produced by a fast meteor. The oxygen ions continue to emit photons and glow for some time after the meteor has gone.

Lower down in altitude, and nitrogen becomes much more prevalent, which when excited will emit photons that appear red in color to us. The transition from higher to lower altitude gives us the yellow-orange, as nitrogen replaces the oxygen in terms of prevalence at a particular altitude.

So with meteors like Leonids and Perseids (which are from cometary sources), you generally don't see other colors unless they are particularly big and bright. Meteors from asteroidal sources tend to be significantly slower, so you tend only to see strong color when they are big and bright, and when you do, the colors will be due to the composition rather than the interaction with our atmosphere.

The best source for info on the subject that I have come across can be found here.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by C.H.U.D.]

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
This sighting in particular, has all the hallmarks of a meteor...

I think the timing was no coincidence. The sighting occurred on the 18th November at 03:23 UT over Long Island. NY. This translates to 22:23 local time on the 17th since NY is 300 minutes behind GMT/UT (can you confirm?).

Excellent analysis! Yes, I think NY is 240 minutes behind GMT/UT on daylight time and 300 minutes behind on standard time, and November 18th would be standard time, so 300 minutes is right.

I didn't even think to check the Leonid meteor schedule, see this is why I asked an expert like you, that's very significant information!

I was already pretty sure it was a meteor but with the Leonid connection I'm even more sure. Sounds like you're pretty sure too. Well that's one unexplained UFO case solved and a few thousand more to go LOL.

reply to post by Pajjikor

Did extraterrestrials blow it up? that my theory

That, my friend, it what I call a flying leap of ignorance.

The sheer amount of critical thinking that needs to be overlooked in order to arrive at the most outlandish theory is what plaques this very subject, and helps to keep it the laughable punchline that it is.

The chances of aliens "saving us" from a meteroite is pretty far fetched. Especially when you turn your brain on and actually look into the whole meteor thing in a little more detail as some very astute members have in this very thread.

Please, in the future try to curb your enthusiasm and desire to believe. Those two traits have DESTROYED this subject, and made it IMPOSSIBLE to get taken seriously in the mainstream.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Glad I could help, although I would not call myself an expert (there are areas of the subject that I don't have a very good knowledge of), but I am familiar with the bare-bones basics of most aspects of the subject thanks to over a decade of observing them, and learning about them mostly from the real experts that have been observing them/studying them for more than half a century in some cases.

I suppose "expert" is a relative term though, so I'll leave it to others to decide whether I'm an expert or not.


One other thing I forgot to note, was the conversation where we hear that another pilot saw a meteor, so I think that helps confirm that meteors were being observed around the same time.

Also, expanding on the "8 hours after peak" part, Leonid meteors can be seen for a week or two either side of the peak, but activity increases significantly 24-48 hours either side of the peak, when more or less "anything can happen", so this is well within the period where we would expect to see heightened Leonid activity.


Even if it was not a Leonid, there are other showers that are active at the same time, and the Taurids in particular may be a good candidate, since they are also known for producing bright meteors. Even though the Taurid radiants were high in the sky at the time, a meteor can still appear to travel parallel to the horizon...

In fact there is an excellent example of a bright Taurid (this one was flaring quite violently, but not all are like that) which is not far off being parallel with the horizon that was captured by NASA's airborne Leonid MAC 2001 observing campaign... you can even see the wingtip, and it was also captured on the 18th November!

Either way, the object fits the description of a meteor, and I have no doubt that my peers would agree with me that a meteor is by far the most likely explanation of this particular case.

I know there are bound to be others out there too, so by all means U2U me if you see a case where you suspect a meteor or meteors may have been involved, and I'll be happy to cast my eye over it.

It's interesting to ponder how people that lived more than 100-200+ years ago might have perceived meteors when there was little or no understanding of what meteors were... they were called "falling stars", but big meteors don't look anything like stars (except perhaps our Sun!). Cases like this one give us little insights into what people then must have thought.

If you really want an insight into what goes through someones mind when they see a bright meteor, as I said before, I recommend every UFO investigator at least spend a few nights on the peak nights of major meteor showers observing.

It's all very well me trying to describe how amazing and "unreal" meteors can appear to be, but actually seeing an "unusual" meteor in real live is a powerful experience and one that can't easily be communicated in words.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I suppose "expert" is a relative term though, so I'll leave it to others to decide whether I'm an expert or not.

That's the way I intended it, in a relative way, I would say you are more of an expert in meteors than 99% of ATS users including me and I think I probably know more than most, however compared to a group of professional astronomers, who make their living studying meteors, you may not be an expert based on what you just said. But in the context of posting on ATS, I think that label fits.

One other thing I forgot to note, was the conversation where we hear that another pilot saw a meteor, so I think that helps confirm that meteors were being observed around the same time.

Yes that's was part of the reason for my conclusion, though now that I know it was a meteor shower I realize that it's just as likely the other pilots reported a different meteor instead of the one in the recording as I originally suspected.

In fact there is an excellent example of a bright Taurid (this one was flaring quite violently, but not all are like that) which is not far off being parallel with the horizon that was captured by NASA's airborne Leonid MAC 2001 observing campaign... you can even see the wingtip, and it was also captured on the 18th November!

Cool!

It's interesting to ponder how people that lived more than 100-200+ years ago might have perceived meteors when there was little or no understanding of what meteors were... they were called "falling stars", but big meteors don't look anything like stars (except perhaps our Sun!). Cases like this one give us little insights into what people then must have thought.

Excellent point. I tend to be pretty skeptical of things which aren't proven, and if we were back 200 years ago I'd probably be the one saying "What ?? You really believe rocks fall from the sky?" To I try to keep that in mind when I scoff too much at some people's crazy ideas, if I can be wrong about rocks falling from the sky, what else could I be wrong about? I mean I grew up knowing rocks fall from the sky but if I didn't and had never seen it happen and had grown up in the 1700s when nobody knew it, I would find it hard to believe. Sort of like the ridicule faced by the German physicist, Ernst Florens Chladni, when he published his paper in 1794 with the "ridiculous claim" that rocks can fall from the sky:

Meteorites in history

he compiled all available data on several meteorite finds and falls concluded that they must have their origins in outer space. The scientific community of the time responded with resistance and mockery.

I see some of these old paintings with unknown orbs or balls of light in them and some people say they prove aliens visited us in ancient times, but isn't it just as possible they could be representing meteor sightings? Like this:

www.crystalinks.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f25711bd5e7f.jpg[/atsimg]

Illustration depicting a sighting of a burning wheel in the year 900 over Japan.

Burning wheel, eh? But in the context of the time, maybe not such a bizarre description for a meteor?

[edit on 3-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


Thanks for that the reason i said E.T was because i did not know that meteor's blew up when they hit the atmosphere sometimes. I assumed that they all crashed into the earth. That is why i called it a theory. I probably should have said it was my hypothesis instead so that everyone understood my choice of words.

A theory that i went off of blindly yes but with my limited knowledge of the subject matter. In my case it had to be outside forces at work. But seeing as how it was plausible theory i went with it.

I was corrected and shown facts and data, which I acknowledge as the truth.


I am however skeptical of the object that the pilots saw as a meteor, there was not enough data on it. The fact that it was flying level at this altitude seems to defy gravity, and couldn't have been a grazer. In addition to the fact that that the pilots were 40 miles apart at the same altitude, and that both said it was same distance away. It has me doubting that this was a meteor. a meteor flying level low in the atmosphere is just one of those things I would have to see for myself to believe

Thanks C.H.U.D for the info on meteor plasma discharge.

Originally posted by Pajjikor
I am however skeptical of the object that the pilots saw as a meteor, there was not enough data on it. The fact that it was flying level at this altitude seems to defy gravity, and couldn't have been a grazer. In addition to the fact that that the pilots were 40 miles apart at the same altitude, and that both said it was same distance away. It has me doubting that this was a meteor. a meteor flying level low in the atmosphere is just one of those things I would have to see for myself to believe

The fact that it was flying level would be the same reason that as opposite traffic to the 2 planes traveling in the same flight path at the same heading, it would pass both at approximately the same distance to both of them, so I'm not sure how that adds to the mystery.

Well here's a thought experiment for you. take those two observation points reported by the pilots 40 miles apart. It was 5000 feet above and to the left of them at both points let's say, so plot a point in space at each of those observation points, then draw a straight line between them. Now, work the trajectory backwards by projecting that straight line back out into space. Why wouldn't that trajectory be possible? Yes 45,000 feet is a little low but to put it another way, it's 8.5 miles up, so it's not that low.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

The fact that it was flying level would be the same reason that as opposite traffic to the 2 planes traveling in the same flight path at the same heading, it would pass both at approximately the same distance to both of them, so I'm not sure how that adds to the mystery.

Well here's a thought experiment for you. take those two observation points reported by the pilots 40 miles apart. It was 5000 feet above and to the left of them at both points let's say, so plot a point in space at each of those observation points, then draw a straight line between them. Now, work the trajectory backwards by projecting that straight line back out into space. Why wouldn't that trajectory be possible? Yes 45,000 feet is a little low but to put it another way, it's 8.5 miles up, so it's not that low.

the fact that it was level means that you cannot have a trajectory going into space. Just by it flying level means that it was doing a circle around the world. but it was flying level for both pilots, who were flying at the same altitude. They both claimed that it was the same distance above their plane, meaning that it wasn't falling, but had some great aerodynamics, a meteor might glide but it cant sustain a level flight. This is where my problem arrives.

Originally posted by Pajjikor
the fact that it was level means that you cannot have a trajectory going into space. Just by it flying level means that it was doing a circle around the world. but it was flying level for both pilots, who were flying at the same altitude. They both claimed that it was the same distance above their plane, meaning that it wasn't falling, but had some great aerodynamics, a meteor might glide but it cant sustain a level flight. This is where my problem arrives.

While I agree that a sustained "level" flight follows the curvature of the Earth, we only have 2 observation points as it passed the aircraft, and if you recall from geometry, you need more than 2 points to draw a curve, if you have only 2 points you can only draw a line, so I think there is no reason to think the flight path of the object followed the curvature of the earth which was negligible over the distance mentioned.

Also keep in mind the 747 travels at maybe mach 0.8 to mach 0.85 and based on the L405 statement that the speed of the object was "very fast" I would think the speed of the meteor in the opposite direction may be at least that. So these sightings were perhaps 2 minutes apart at those closing speeds, and I hope you agree even in a plane, you can't experience much of the Earth's curvature in 2 minutes.

Lastly as CHUD mentioned, there is probably some error in the distance estimates provided by the pilots. Now one reason I like pilot sightings is that they skilled observers. If a pilot describes another aircraft and they recognize the aircraft type, I'd say they have an excellent ability to judge the distance of the object, because they know the size of the object and therefore have a basis for comparison. But if the object is unknown, as well as the speed of the object, they no longer have the same ability to accurately judge the object's distance. Was the object the size of a pebble? a golf ball? a baseball? softball? basketball? Pickup truck? if you keep the same number of arc seconds of view traversed by each of those objects constant, their distances will vary by over an order of magnitude. Also I believe CHUD pointed out they probably didn't see the object at all. What they probably saw was a blanket of plasma surrounding the object from the front view (what they called the bright white light in front) and the smoke trail behind the object as that plasma mingled with the atmosphere. So there is plenty of reason to anticipate large errors in estimating distances to meteors and in fact such errors are common, typically result in estimating the objects to be much closer than they are, and while pilots tend to be better observers than the general population I don't think they are exempt from misperception of meteor distance.

But even if their distance estimates were accurate, and let's assume for a moment that they were accurate, you still have just a straight line path, not a curved path, and that straight line can extend right back out into space, where it's only momentum moving the object, no aerodynamics or flight control needed.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

That's the way I intended it, in a relative way, I would say you are more of an expert in meteors than 99% of ATS users including me and I think I probably know more than most, however compared to a group of professional astronomers, who make their living studying meteors, you may not be an expert based on what you just said. But in the context of posting on ATS, I think that label fits.

Thanks - I'll go along with that.

Excellent point. I tend to be pretty skeptical of things which aren't proven, and if we were back 200 years ago I'd probably be the one saying "What ?? You really believe rocks fall from the sky?" To I try to keep that in mind when I scoff too much at some people's crazy ideas, if I can be wrong about rocks falling from the sky, what else could I be wrong about? I mean I grew up knowing rocks fall from the sky but if I didn't and had never seen it happen and had grown up in the 1700s when nobody knew it, I would find it hard to believe. Sort of like the ridicule faced by the German physicist, Ernst Florens Chladni, when he published his paper in 1794 with the "ridiculous claim" that rocks can fall from the sky:

The irony is, the same thing still happens today.

I see some of these old paintings with unknown orbs or balls of light in them and some people say they prove aliens visited us in ancient times, but isn't it just as possible they could be representing meteor sightings? Like this:

I look at it this way: There were obviously meteors back then, and people would have seen them. This means they likely would have recorded them (as they did with most other aspects of life). It stands to reason then, that "meteor-like" objects in old illustrations, are more than likely depictions of real meteors. Of course, we probably can never know for sure

[edit on 4-2-2010 by C.H.U.D.]

reply to post by Pajjikor

I am however skeptical of the object that the pilots saw as a meteor, there was not enough data on it. The fact that it was flying level at this altitude seems to defy gravity, and couldn't have been a grazer. In addition to the fact that that the pilots were 40 miles apart at the same altitude, and that both said it was same distance away. It has me doubting that this was a meteor. a meteor flying level low in the atmosphere is just one of those things I would have to see for myself to believe

It's understandable that yourself and others have trouble getting your head round what is happening - these are after all alien objects traveling at speeds that people have a hard time comprehending, and in a place that people do not understand too well.

Try looking at it this way...

Stop thinking in terms of up and down, horizontal and vertical. Those things are only relevant to you...

Earth, and it's atmosphere are basically spherical, and what direction a meteor appears to you to be traveling in, depends on your position in relation to the meteor.

Consider this diagram:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a39424fef1a.jpg[/atsimg]

I've exaggerated the scale since it would be harder to design, and fit into a small image, whilst conveying the idea I want it to.

If the green grazer passes directly over head of observer "A", how will it appear to be traveling to observers B, C, and D (assuming its traveling from left to right)?

Notice, "up" is not the same for every observer, and neither is horizontal!

Although exaggerated, this demonstrates what is going on in reality.


Let's look in detail at one particular situation:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2a65a90e710.jpg[/atsimg]

Imagine we are looking directly down on an observer standing at the North Pole (although it doesn't really matter where the observer is for this example), and a meteor hits the edge of the atmosphere. and grazes through it's top layers, from left to right. The red line is the observer's "line of sight". The black arrow at the top shows the direction in which "our camera" is looking in the next diagram.


Now here is the exact same situation, except this time we are looking at it from another angle:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a84b9a2ec803.jpg[/atsimg]

We are looking along the observer's line of sight, and the meteor is passing between us. and the observer. To the observer the meteor will appear to be traveling horizontally, and parallel with the horizon.

Remember, meteoroids can hit us from almost any angle and direction, and gravity does not have any significant influence on small and extremely fast moving objects, so up/down/sideways/horizontal are all irrelevant to a meteoroid, and only relevent in relation to an observer.

Hope that clarifies the situation.

Thanks C.H.U.D for the info on meteor plasma discharge.

You're welcome


[edit on 4-2-2010 by C.H.U.D.]