Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by lux »

Does anyone find exploding meteors to be unlikely in and of itself?

Meteors, we're told, are mostly made of iron and/or rock and/or some other metals like nickel. So, why would they explode when they're heated by re-entry?

Iron is heated and melted every day in steel mills. So are many other metals but I've never heard of any explosions caused by this. Do blacksmiths frequently blow themselves up by heating and pounding on iron or other metals? The same goes for welders.

And, does heating up a rock cause it to explode? Has anyone ever duplicated such a phenomenon?

Comets are supposed to be made of mostly ice and rock and some frozen gasses. Has anyone ever caused such a concoction to explode by heating it? If ice is an explosive then we're in big trouble on this planet!

Earth has dozens of meteor showers every year. Some burn up in the atmosphere and some make it all the way to the ground. But, I've never heard of them exploding in mid air until this recent silliness about 1908 Tunguska which the "science" channels starting yapping about around the 1990s and Hollywood has been propagandizing about for decades. I remember watching meteor showers as a kid for hours and I never saw any explode.

And, speaking of Tunguska, did that event even really happen? What evidence is there really? Some alleged witnesses said they saw or felt an explosion but no fragments of anything were ever found (yet the "scientists" are sure what it was somehow). The area wasn't even investigated for almost 20 years afterward. It was supposed to be the biggest explosion in history and nobody even bothered to fly over it and take a photo? There were aircraft in 1908 and lots of aircraft a few years later as a result of WWI including those equipped for aerial photography yet nobody bothered to fly over it at the time and take a picture? ( I think there are some recent aerial photos but the ones I've seen don't show much).

We have some photos of it, like these ...
Image
Image
... that show relatively small areas but nothing like a major portion of the alleged destruction.

But it was supposed to cover an area of over 800 square miles. That would a be a circle of about 30 miles in diameter. But nobody bothered to take an aerial photo so all we have are these images of small areas of felled trees that had been there for at least about 20 years.

Compare the above photos to these:
Image
Image
Image
Image

Were these trees knocked down by an exploding asteroid? Nope. These are photos of what is called "clearcutting" of forests, cutting down every tree in sight. A practice that goes back many decades. Not all that different from the Tunguska photos, no? :)

So, what evidence is there really that the 1908 Tunguska event even happened? I'm not saying it didn't happen but might the version of events be at least somewhat inaccurate or exaggerated? After all, the investigation of it didn't even begin until almost 20 years later and the evidence that has been presented seems far from conclusive to me.
Sisterlover
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by Sisterlover »

Several posts back in this thread, there was a comment about the number of dash cams in Russia. Just prior to that post a relative sent me this link for some comic relief. It would appear that driving in Russia is far more dangerous than being hit by meteor debris.
What's more, I believe most of this footage to be real!



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPkE2hHneP4


PS: I have seen some rock explode, not in a fire-y way, but in a dangerous, sudden cracking open and sending rock schrapnel way. We test all the rock for our sauna by repeatedly smashing them first on another, bigger rock. River rock is much better than fieldstone for this purpose.
Sisterlover
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:49 pm

shootin' the moon.

Unread post by Sisterlover »

simonshack wrote:
rusty wrote: I can't remember even a tiny asteroid being captured hitting the moon.
Excellent point, Rusty.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but haven't we been told that:

1. The moon has no protective atmosphere - and this is the reason for all those craters we can see (caused by asteroid impacts)?

2: The asteroid which allegedly exploded in the Russian skies a few days ago had the power equivalent to "30 Hiroshima bombs"?


So how come we have never recorded throughout history any MASSIVE ASTEROID IMPACT on the moon? Or have we?
Not that I know of, but what ever became NASA's attempt at shooting a rocket at the moon, and the ensuing crater that it left behind? That may be (if real) the furthest the agency has gotten into space. Could they have hoped to determine what a blast crater looked like? You'd think a rock that size would be hit by "100 tons daily", or around there... but alas, it was 'a flop'.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... crash.html
scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by scud »

Heiwa
“The main reason that, e.g. meteors finally impact vertically on the Moon (and Earth) is that during the approach at any original angle incl. 0° = horizontally to or parallell with the Moon/Earth, gravity force of the Moon (and Earth) attracts the meteor and changes its trajectory parabolically to more and more vertical, e.g. 90° at perpendicular impact.”
Hi Heiwa.

Yes, I understand that a projectile coming in from any angle other than 90 degrees to centre in the presence of gravity will form a parabola but we must remember the..err..astronomical quoted speeds of asteroids, comets what-have-you. I’ve heard everything from 20 to 150 thousand Mp/h and when we consider the comparatively weak gravity of the Moon and the fact that it is sans atmosphere (assuming that this information is correct) any object, unless its velocity is directly, or perhaps just slightly off the ‘bullseye’ I seriously doubt that it’s trajectory is going to curve enough to form a circular impact site...perhaps something more akin to this ??

Image
rusty
“As far as I understand, this still requires some kind of "extraterrestrial" object closing in on our earth, right?”
Hi Rusty.

Yeah, the idea is that it’s basically an enormous ‘spark’...a lightning bolt, negative to positive or vice versa that occurs when proximity is close enough, speculating that an asteroid / comet large enough to cause serious damage is unlikely to make physical contact of any of the solar systems major bodies.
“To me the moon surface rather looks like a frozen, formerly bubbly mass. I can't remember even a tiny asteroid being captured hitting the moon.”
No, neither can I. And what ever caused the cratering (electrical discharge or not, the phenomena obviously doesn’t occur anymore, or if it does, it’s so rare as to be undocumented throughout human history. Having said that though, the key figures who form the ‘electric Universe’ clan, believe that our most ancient ancestors bore witness to a very different looking cosmos by virtue of artifacts which all bear a remarkable similarity of imagery...even though we can be sure that these various cultures never encountered each other.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: shootin' the moon.

Unread post by lux »

Sisterlover wrote:... what ever became NASA's attempt at shooting a rocket at the moon, and the ensuing crater that it left behind?
Here it is --


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avmDnwsOGDw
Sisterlover
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: shootin' the moon.

Unread post by Sisterlover »

lux wrote:
Sisterlover wrote:... what ever became NASA's attempt at shooting a rocket at the moon, and the ensuing crater that it left behind?
Here it is --


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avmDnwsOGDw
Thank you, Lux.. For the record, I was standing already, biting my nails and wringing hands in anticipation/apprehension. As usual, I was not let down by another of NASA's glorious victories.
It's funny, but the lack of concocted imagery with this event may lend it more credence than all the other bogus footage we are treated to regularly. Then again, it may not.
This is a weird one though, even for NASA. I remember there being very little fanfare leading up to this 'experiment'. You'd think it would have been all over the news prior to the launch, but I seem to recall getting about 12 hours notice of the agency's intention to launch a missile at our nearest celestial neighbour. The audacity!

BTW: Yahoo answers defines the term "shoot the moon" as follows...
"There is a related expression "to shoot for the moon", which is obviously the previous stage in the process, meaning to set oneself a very ambitious target without much chance of success. Therefore if one actually *does* manage to "shoot the moon", one has achieved a very unlikely outcome.

Both expressions may be connected with the fact that "the moon" has long been used as a symbol for something utterly and unrealistically unobtainable - cf. "There's no use crying for the moon" and "He's asking for the moon there". "
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Standing ovation for NASA bombing the moon


Image
elmoastro
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:41 pm

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by elmoastro »

I'm not a surgeon, but I can watch and listen as a surgery is performed and pick up on the jargon and follow along. Same goes for plumbing, nuclear physics, astronomy, philosophy, psychology and pretty much anything I find interesting.

Why is it that nothing is anywhere near coherent in NASA non-speak. It's gibberish settings, gibberish indicators. Even looking at the old atomic & early NASA control center footage, the dials and data are meaningless lines, numbers, dial settings, lights, and math scribblings. It's fascinating to compare the 60's footage with today's NASA show. Back then the acting was primitive to our current standards and one sees that EVERYTHING in these old Lookout Mountain and NASA productions are simulations meant to look real. It was as produced then to the best of their editing abilities as it is now. People look back on the old footage and "reason" that the acting would have been obvious, or that that's how it was, but in reality it was not to the viewers back then. Much like the reality shows today filled with actors, (and politics, media in all forms, job performers and any label a person buys into) many still believe reality shows to be authentic and captivating. But they could never grasp even a hint that they are ultimately a viewer of a different kind of reality show. This show, the participant not only believes the actors are real, but that it's not even a show of any sort--it's just "life". The best prison is the one whose inmates defend it. Anyone defending any of these current event hoaxes, stunts, exercises and staged propaganda without even asking a question or five is trapped. The acting just gets better and more realistic and the tech keeps improving. And at the same time, to anyone who looks with a critical eye, it's obvious that nothing makes sense. But once people start to dissect logic trails, analyse photos and video and assume based on past-performance that this media/government industry has a long history of bullshit and shenanigans, the charade becomes apparent even as it is being delievered and picked apart in real time like here.

Back to NASA...there is nothing the jargon applies to that the viewer can put together and follow along. The information is completely accepted because a) it's NASA and b) it must be true because of a). No further inquiry necessary and anyone who does ask questions is immediately attacked. The data that NASA provides is gibberish meant to confuse and bedazzle anyone who doesn't have some sort of a bullshit firewall in their thinking process. People will accept and pass on as fact any little scrap of info. Copy five six, Science reset the 52 stroke 6 slash B indicator. Flight, the BM-51 is at 3 Max, 10 seconds to E-Jack, Is it farther to Chicago than by bus? Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

The hypno of the 50s and 60s is obvious to anyone today who cares. The hypno of this decade is yet to be discovered in full. Most have never considered they're completely programmed, hypnotised and under spells upon spells of belief structures.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJ4Mh4Elx4
scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by scud »

Lux wrote:
“Comets are supposed to be made of mostly ice and rock and some frozen gasses. Has anyone ever caused such a concoction to explode by heating it? If ice is an explosive then we're in big trouble on this planet!”
Ha haar! Good points Lux. Well, we’ve been through the ‘cold’ of space and I hope we’ve appreciated that there is no such thing. It isn’t ‘cold’ neither is it ‘hot’ since ‘nothing’ (a vacuum) doesn’t contain molecules to ‘excite’. However, a comet is presumably constructed of molecules (exactly of what material, I’ve no idea) which will be ‘excited’ or ‘heated’ in accordance with its proximity to the Sun.
A comet visible to us with the naked eye I would have thought to be relatively close, so logic would follow that it’d be of a not too dissimilar distance as us from old sol, minus of course a protective atmosphere hundreds of miles thick. So ‘ice’? Nah...don’t think so, much more likely in my opinion to be glowing white hot, just as we observe...

Image

Standard theory as to the comets tail is that the surface of its nucleus is ablated by the solar wind (again, related to its distance from the Sun). I suppose that this could be true but you’d kind of expect, that since this tail is reckoned to be millions of miles long that they’d quickly ‘ablate’ themselves to nothing...yet certain comets re-appear as regular as clockwork and have done for millennia.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley's_Comet .
Electric Cosmos theory has a different answer, in that the tail is actually electricity, a fluorescing plasma that strikes up as the PD between it and the Sun increases with diminishing distance...hence no actual material lost, hence the same show every few decades / centuries.

--------------------------------

Why should a ball of rock or iron ‘explode’ in the atmosphere? No reason I can think of except that If the Tunguska event did happen as described and the eye witnesses are to be believed then it does sound very much as if the champions of EC theory are correct...a gigantic arc of electric current flowed between Earth and the ‘intruder’ obliterating it, the concussion blasting down all those square miles of trees.
Sisterlover
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by Sisterlover »

Since "the question deserved an answer", NASA has weighed in with their very weak retort regarding their inability to spot the meteor before it hit Earth.

Spoiler alert: It has nothing to do with the fact that there never was a meteor in space! Rather, they can only spot dimly lit/non-reflective objects this size at night, not during the day. So much for the defensive capabilities of our space agency.

http://wiki.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20th ... 90869.html
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by fbenario »

anon1911 wrote:I haven't heard of any impact at the moon, but we do have footage of an impact on jupiter.
No we don't.

Or have you forgotten the main NASA conclusion of this forum, which is that NONE of the footage of outer space is trustworthy?

Please tell us why you automatically assume that footage shows us what it purports to show us.
Sisterlover
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by Sisterlover »

"...even with very large telescopes, the meteoroid would not have been visible until a mere 2 hours (135,000 km from Earth) before impact -- very little time to sound a warning."
-NASA on meteor strike

I was labouring under the delusion that the meteor was travelling at 33-40,000 miles per hour, which would leave roughly 1-4 seconds of warning time. But two hours??? I'd be happy to receive two hours warning
of my imminent doom, rather than none... but that's just me
Last edited by Sisterlover on Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sisterlover
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by Sisterlover »

fbenario wrote:
anon1911 wrote:I haven't heard of any impact at the moon, but we do have footage of an impact on jupiter.
No we don't.

Or have you forgotten the main NASA conclusion of this forum, which is that NONE of the footage of outer space is trustworthy?

Please tell us why you automatically assume that footage shows us what it purports to show us.
I'm not going to try to back up that claim, but I will provide a hilarious link to an 'asteroid' hit of Sept.14, 2012, caught by amateur astronomers, on Jupiter.

They've calculated the offending projectile to be just 5-10 metres in size (smaller than our Russian meteor) but displaying an incredible amount of damage to the huge planet.
Just look at how the impact has decimated those pixels!

Image

This (and other slide show images) are courtesy of...
http://www.gizmag.com/jupiter-impact-20 ... pictures#4
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by lux »

Here NASA shows us their fabulous multi-billion dollar photography of fuzzy blobs hitting other fuzzy blobs which they say is the 1994 Shoemaker–Levy 9 comet hitting Jupiter:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zNuT4dbdjU

Still no visible stars though, of course.

Here's a longer clip which includes the requisite ecstatic reactions of NASA clowns as they watch the blobs plus some neat-o Hubble-icious photos and cartoons of the "event."


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiLNxZbpP20

Image
Last edited by lux on Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sisterlover
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Russian Meteor Shower 15-2-2013

Unread post by Sisterlover »

Right on cue, everyone's favourite scientologist Tom Cruise is starring in this sci-fi eye-candy knock-up of a meteorite-destroyed Earth now harbouring transhuman 'beings' etc. The trailer even shows Cruise watering a can of plants a'la Disney's "Wall-E" It's got a nice scary title, too!

http://www.universalpictures.ca/en/oblivion/trailer
Post Reply