Satellite Sees Atmospheric Asteroid Strike (Oct 7); Ethiopian Volcano Lava Covers 115 Square Miles

October 7 and November 6

[bayliving]

LOL!!!

I don't know how LUCKY I was but I know what it was that I saw and I wasn't the only one there to see it.

[beezdotcom]

Okay, sure.

[SunkenCiv]

It sounds perfectly reasonable, and thanks for sharing that story. In the summer of 2002, during an outdoor break at work, I saw a chunk of space rock coming in. It was very large, tumbling, and apparently in the process of coming apart as it entered the atmosphere. A coworker had been watching it for at least a few seconds, and then called my attention to it. I watched it for perhaps another five seconds, then it passed behind some tall trees. I have no idea how high it was (I heard no noise), how large it was, whether it wound up skipping off the atmosphere after all, or if the shattered pieces fell to Earth over a wide area.

[SunkenCiv]

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

[beezdotcom]

I saw a chunk of space rock coming in. It was very large, tumbling, and apparently in the process of coming apart as it entered the atmosphere.

This description, I would believe. Listing those visual characteristics and surmising that it was a space rock is a little different than insisting "it was non-illuminated and looked like a rock."

[LTCJ]

Interesting. I used photos from this satellite to solve the mystery of an aircraft/weather encounter. The sequence of photos showed a huge and record-breaking thunderhead that boiled up from below and “swallowed” the aircraft. had it not been for the satellite photos we never would have truly know what caused the incident.

[bayliving]

I am open for suggestions.....

There was something there. I wasn't the ONLY one who saw it. It was moving too fast to be a plane and it was WAY too BIG to be a satellite!

WHY can't you believe that an asteroid came close enough to be seen by the naked eye but not close enough to get caught up in earths atmosphere?!?!

Or is it something personal with me?

If you are going to dispute what I said then I would like some sort of "reasonable" argument other than your dismissal.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

A 747 is 7 miles up and very small. A rock higher than the atmosphere that could be made out plainly would be a civilization killer if it would impact, probably at least a mile wide (the dinosaur killer was 6 miles wide).

Not saying you’re wrong, it’s just that this better not happen often or else we’re bound to not get so lucky one time.

[beezdotcom]

WHY can't you believe that an asteroid came close enough to be seen by the naked eye but not close enough to get caught up in earths atmosphere?!?!

Clearly, it's POSSIBLE. However, to be outside of atmospheric influence and still recognizable as a ROCK (not ASSUMED to be a rock, but visually IDENTIFIABLE as such), it would have to be a mile in size.

Something that large WOULD have been reported - if not before, then after, as many are. There's no point in a conspiracy to hide it after the fact.

Or is it something personal with me?

It absolutely isn't personal with YOU. It's just a familiar tone of the discussion that perhaps, just perhaps, I've unfairly judged. Perhaps.

I have no doubt you and other people saw SOMETHING. It is a slightly greater than zero probability that you saw exactly what you purported to see. However, it is so unlikely for something like that to go completely unnoticed and unreported by the scientific and military community that it just seems more likely that it might be a case of mistaken identity. You can continue to remember the experience however you like; you don't need my validation (and are unlikely to get it without further information, but don't take it personally).

Notice, I don't have a problem with SunkenCiv's experience, because that sounds like a fairly average description of a 'space rock' encounter. Your description, whether you realize it or not, is so EXTRAORDINARY that it demands extraordinary supporting information. But it is absolutely not personal.

[cogitator]

Nice. I’ve seen two or three fireballs in my lifetime, one in daylight. Always rather startling.

[cogitator]

I used photos from this satellite to solve the mystery of an aircraft/weather encounter.

Interesting! But I'm sorry about the passengers in the aircraft.

[LTCJ]

Interesting! But I'm sorry about the passengers in the aircraft.

Actually, they were unharmed but scared out of their minds. The aircraft sustained damage but was able to land safely. I deliberately distinguished between 'incident' and 'accident'.

I wish I could go into more details - it made for one heck of a detective story. Maybe I'll write a book one day when they'll let me.

[bayliving]

Thank you for your explanation but I know what I saw.

This thing was large enough to catch light (not be "lit up") but enough to be seen and if you didn't happen to be looking up at the time you would never have seen it because it was dimly lit. It was moving WAY too fast as it went from horizon line to horizon line in a matter of seconds, it wobbled/tumbled (didn't travel in a straight line.) I can understand you being a skeptic, but maybe those that are tasked with looking for such things just missed it.

There is just a hand full of people globally even looking for these types of things.

You don't have to believe me but what else could it have been.

I would have doubted myself too if it weren't for the five or six other people who were standing with me seeing the SAME thing.

The conclusion we all came to was that we just had a near miss from something from space.

Believe me or not, I know what I saw.

[beezdotcom]

Thank you for your explanation but I know what I saw.

Translation: "Stop wasting your time."

I can understand you being a skeptic, but maybe those that are tasked with looking for such things just missed it.

Maybe in advance - but an object as large as you describe coming as close as you describe would have alerted NORAD, and NASA would have made follow-up observations.

You don't have to believe me but what else could it have been.

I could offer a long list of possibilities, most of them terrestrial in nature - but why bother? You're not going to listen to me. None of my explanations will be nearly as sensational.

The conclusion we all came to was that we just had a near miss from something from space.

I'll look for your collective writeup in the AAS journals.

Believe me or not, I know what I saw.

Okay, then.

[bayliving]

I asked for explanations before. You just gave me attitude, hence the reason why I asked if it was personal.

Tell me what YOU think it is then. Something that doesn't have any external light sorce but was reflecting enough light to be seen. It was very high up in the sky.

Lareg enough to be seen at night even though it was dimly lit. Moving so fast that it went from horizon to horizon in a matter of seconds with NO VAPOR TRAIL. (How many miles can be seen from horizon to horizon from a fixed point? I don't know so I am asking.) This would give a good reference to how fast it was moving. It was there and gone in a matter of 6 to 8 seconds. (What do we have that can move that fast without making a sound?)

I could think of quite a few reasons why if the our government knew about it that it wouldn't tell us.

Tell me, would NORAD tell YOU or ME ANYTHING that could possibly be a global threat?

Maybe they would tell you I don't know what you do but you sure as hell couldn't tell me then could you? Maybe NASA DID make followup observations. Again, why the hell would they tell you or me about it?!

I could offer a long list of possibilities, most of them terrestrial in nature - but why bother? You're not going to listen to me. None of my explanations will be nearly as sensational.

Please stop judging me without you KNOWING me. What have I said to you to lead you to belive that I am closed minded?

I asked you for your thinking of what it could be AND.....

I am still waiting for an explanation for what it could have been. Believe it or NOT I am open for suggestions. Honestly. Tell me what you think it might have been and I will consider it with an open mind. So please drop the attitude.

[beezdotcom]

I asked for explanations before.

You want specific explanations - I'm telling you there's nowhere near enough information presented to get too specific, much less have me draw the conclusion you drew. I could posit any number of explanations from a wayward balloon to little green men, and you can casually dismiss them all, knowing that I haven't met some as yet unmentioned detail or criteria.

It was very high up in the sky.

That's the first assumption I have to question. How can you be sure? If it's dimly lit, and fast moving, and you've only observed it for a scant few seconds - why couldn't it have been something much LOWER? The unevenness of ground lighting reflecting off of a much lower object can create the illusion of higher altitude, of surface details, of erratic motion, etc. That is just one of a HUGE number of possibilities - do I really need to list them all?

Can you instead (and I ask this only to make a point about the nature of the task) just list all the possiblities you considered and discounted, along with the specific details of why each possibility was discounted? That would be the actual scientific method in supporting your hypothesis.

(How many miles can be seen from horizon to horizon from a fixed point? I don't know so I am asking.)

That depends on altitude...a wayward balloon caught in a breeze a hundred yards up, or a goose, for example, could traverse horizon to horizon in just a few seconds, because it would only have a few hundred yards to go.

Yes, I expect you to be insulted by those two possibilities - because nobody could mistake those for a space rock, right? (Except that they have been mistaken for far worse, by otherwise intelligent people).

The reality is that I don't know WHAT you saw - but given the circumstances and conditions you self-report, you couldn't (or shouldn't) be that certain, either. Your deep conviction over the matter just doesn't jibe with the physical probabilities, the duration, the viewing environment, or the training of the observers - unless you have left critical information out of your report to date.

The best analogy to this discussion is that of UFO observers. To quote from another source: "Untrained observers, faced with an unexpected and surprising phenomenon, may not always have the presence of mind to make reliable estimates of angular size and speed (by comparing them with an object of known size held at arm's length, for instance). In any case, angular measurements only put limits on size and speed rather than definitively identifying an object. Thus, when the ufologist is told by a witness that the object was 'large, very high and moving fast', these are subjective judgments rather than straightforward observations. It is also possible that the object in question was, in fact, small, at low altitude and drifting slowly (like a balloon, for instance). "

If it is somehow deeply important to you that I not challenge your conclusion, I apologize - but I can't offer that. If nobody else has so challenged your conclusion to date, then thank me for the opportunity to first defend it in this more controlled setting, with the opportunity to reflect between questions - instead of having to do so in a more immediate and confrontational setting.

If I seem overly 'nitpicky' on this topic - well, let's just say that I've had a long-standing passion for physics and astrophysics. To say more about that would not be helpful (or needed) for a discussion like this.