Something flew into and hit the meteorite?

Originally posted by Carreau
Has the speed of that meteor been determined? And if so, what would the speed of that smaller object gaining on it have to be? Could a interceptor man-made reach the speed needed to hit the meteor?

guessing that its probably traveling a terminal velocity, we can go ALOT faster

It is a hoax. I am surprised that it’s the first one I have seen on this. Comments are disabled on YouTube for your video even.

Here is the original.

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by Signals

 

What speeds do a rail-gun projectile travel at?

According to this article m.csmonitor.com... over 5,000 MPH.

Keep in mind your projectile would not need to fly at the estimated 40,000 MPH to intercept the meteor, as long as you calculated the flight path correctly....

reply to post by Grimpachi


Thank you Grim

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by Jomina

 

OK so my next question would be how much speed was lost on entry, 40,000mph to what? And is there any validity to the Russian claim of hitting something traveling at that speed from behind like it appears in the video? What do they have that could accomplish this?

I tried to google russian interceptor missiles. The fastest one I could find with out knowing the names of all their tech was one with a speed of Mach 6 and that was some 1979 Ballistic missile interceptor with a 9kt nuclear warhead on it.OLD school cold war era interceptor... No clue, if they have a more modern one that's faster, but I don't know the names to be looking for either.

Heading towards the meteor it's quite probable it could be shot down, but coming from behind.. Wow. Do we know what the speed in the atmosphere was? Does anyone know where to find info on more modern Soviet interceptors. I sincerely doubt they rely on 1979 nuclear tipped interceptors these days. That would be a PR nightmare if used.

I found a piece further into my wiki article stating mach 8.5 for current models.. It's all over the place though, my brain hurts trying to read this wiki, it may as well be cyrilic.

reply to post by Jauk3


It was Superman! He has a new movie coming out you know.

Originally posted by Signals

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by Signals

 

What speeds do a rail-gun projectile travel at?

According to this article m.csmonitor.com... over 5,000 MPH.

Keep in mind your projectile would not need to fly at the estimated 40,000 MPH to intercept the meteor, as long as you calculated the flight path correctly....

Soo a Russian interceptor doing mach 8.5(6,460 mph) is not the better choice how? The missile can correct it's course while traveling towards the target. The rail gun goes straight, once fired.

reply to post by Hijinx


True...

This is also a possibility as a defense system-

scienceray.com...

reply to post by Signals


I always loved that story!!! Oh my god, if it were really what they think they are.

I'm not necessarily convinced they are ancient alien defense weapons. I'd be more likely to believe debris from a secret soviet nuclear test.

How ever we don't know, at least not yet.

One major issue I see with the idea of shooting down a meteor is it would break up into many still potentially hazardous pieces.

Originally posted by Hijinx
reply to post by Signals

 

I always loved that story!!! Oh my god, if it were really what they think they are.

I'm not necessarily convinced they are ancient alien defense weapons. I'd be more likely to believe debris from a secret soviet nuclear test.

How ever we don't know, at least not yet.

One major issue I see with the idea of shooting down a meteor is it would break up into many still potentially hazardous pieces.

Maybe they calculated it was going to hit Moscow or some other populated city and thought that the damage would be less if they forced it down into smaller pieces. This is actually a good conspiracy if true and should make people rest a bit easier.

This is ats so here's my thoery.

The same ET's that are responsible for the shutting down of the nuke bases are the ones who shot this down.
They must have a reason to want to protect the planet, they also did the same with Tunguska.

I wonder what the result would have been if it didn't break up, if it hit the ground in one piece?

I'm no expert (^clearly^) but I would have thought if it was going to break up naturaly, it would have done so at the point of contact with our upper atmosphere.

reply to post by Jauk3


Pretty interesting. Most people don't actually know how an air to air, or surface to air missile actually works. I am an expert on such things, and I'll leave it at that. A missile designed to intercept an air target has a proximity warhead. The missile detects when it is close enough to it's target and then detonates. The explosion seen when an aircraft is shot down is caused by the aircraft itself, not the missile. Pretty much every radar guided and heat seeking missile has what is called a continuous rod warhead, imagine thousands of metal rods connected together, packed into a small cylinder (the warhead section) right behind the guidance section of a missile. When the missile detects that it is within "kill" range of the target a charge detonates releasing the continuous rod warhead... the rods spread out and spin (picture a giant chainsaw blade) which literally cuts the target in half.

The moral of the story is that all conventional missiles, either air launched or surfaced launched, that are designed to destroy airborne targets use a continuous rod warhead because the target is moving, and if the missile were a direct impact weapon the chances of hitting the target are slim to none. No conventional missile out there has the explosive capacity or the capability of destroying a large rock flying through the air faster than the speed of sound. It would be impossible to use a missile designed for ground targets in this capacity because they don't have the capability of chasing down an object, especially one moving that fast. The only way this thing was shot down is if some "special" or secret missile was used, and that is certainly a possibility.

Just wanted to add this.

Apparently NASA cut the feed before the two objects could cross.

Didn't look like it hit, either way, but interesting none the least.

Coincidental space debris,

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


I never knew that, about the rods and how a missle actually works. It seems people are the most evil of animals. With nations having such distrust of the other to build such things, they better get things worked out at those yearly meetings or at the retreats with the ceremonies and the owl and the masked women - just take the time to solve man's inhumanity to man while you're having fun, why doncha.

The premise of this thread rises above the mundane, and as with all good theories, whoosh, proof of the theory actually almost quite nearly exists except not quite. That's the fun zone.

reply to post by Carreau


Your welcome it was pretty easy to find the original footage they obscured it by changing the filter then added the graphics to it. I am surprised this hasn’t been moved to hoax yet. A dead giveaway is when they disable comments on the video or screen the replies it’s because they are hiding something.

reply to post by Jauk3


ooooo i even have to admit that is hard to say the video got me interested on the subject and i usually take one look at things like this and turn my nose the other way (sad isnt it) good job SnF

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Carreau

 

Your welcome it was pretty easy to find the original footage they obscured it by changing the filter then added the graphics to it. I am surprised this hasn’t been moved to hoax yet. A dead giveaway is when they disable comments on the video or screen the replies it’s because they are hiding something.

At the General Public - I too have read the theory about the Destroyer - Or what ever it was called, was fascinated by it and would love that this was what occurred. But there are still many holes in the theory that need to be filled. But also on the other hand as well.
I dont know. I am no expert - AT ALL But in your video, the original, they did not seem to zoom in as much as what the OP's video presentation has done.
So is this a factor in why its not seen in the original?

reply to post by The_Seeker


It is the same video but the one in the OP has been doctored. It can be done with most video editing software. All you need to do is look at the beginning and look at the overpass sign then the turn in the road to see it is the same video.


BTW I am not sure what you are talking about with the destroyer.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by The_Seeker

 

It is the same video but the one in the OP has been doctored. It can be done with most video editing software. All you need to do is look at the beginning and look at the overpass sign then the turn in the road to see it is the same video.


BTW I am not sure what you are talking about with the destroyer.

That was at some of the general public that have commented on Russian Ancient History - Some sort of artifact that destroys meteorites etc.

I dont mean to be rude, and I understand that this can be done with software, but what you show and what the OP has shown are different because:
- in the OP's vid, they seem to CLOSE UP - CLOSE IN on the original footage to show you what is occurring, but,
- the original vid which you presented had none of this.

Again I understand what your saying but you still have not answered my question.
If you can not answer the question, again without being rude, is there someone out there that can?