Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Meteor? discussion

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Meteor? discussion

    This is a discussion thread for the following file:

    Meteor?

    I found this incredible thing flying over Kasai-shi, Japan, with a 8km-length trail. When it catched my eye I thught it 's a fountain but the scale is not logical.

    I also consider the possibility of "glass glare" that often happened on GE. But according the detail of trail I denied it.

    So is that impossible it is a meteor? Obviously the illumination is too low. We all know that when meteors fly into atmosphere they burned into a flamed ball with smoky tail. The luminance of the "thing" is not that much.

    Well, maybe it's a kind of UFO or something I can't recognize. I hope you guys can explain it.


  2. #2

    Talking Meteor!

    Hello!
    It really seems to be a meteor.
    On 6th of november 2006, a very little one crossed up to the city where I lived. It was very shiny but,any smoke at all.
    Bye!

  3. #3
    Senior Member photizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Starnberg, Germany
    Posts
    126

    Default Hard to believe...

    ... that this is a meteor. But I agree, that it looks **** much like one. My guess is that it's ash or kind of lime that was blown to the east by a (very precise ) wind. But - hey - perhaps you have spotted the first meteor in GE!

    Congrats!

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Munden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    939

    Default

    Another strike against this being a meteor is that Digital Earth Technology deals with aerial imagery, which is what this section is. This would mean the object would be between the aircraft and ground, making it even less likely. Most meteors burn up or explode quite high in the atmosphere.

    Keeping in mind that if it were a meteor, it would be heavily blurred and streaked from the extreme speed compared to the aircraft. It could be something as photizo suggests, or given that it's aerial photograph it could also just be damage on the negative when it was developed.

  5. #5

    Default

    Weird one. At first I thought maybe they were burning something on the ground. But wind would have to be blowing very hard and doesn't look like strong wind on the lake next to it. So I'm going to guess it's not real and is some kind of artifact in the developing process.

    Matt
    Matt Fox

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Munden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forkboy2 View Post
    Weird one. At first I thought maybe they were burning something on the ground. But wind would have to be blowing very hard and doesn't look like strong wind on the lake next to it. So I'm going to guess it's not real and is some kind of artifact in the developing process.

    Matt
    Yup, after my other comment about the negative, I thought about it and am of the opinion that it's likely that one of the bleaches used in the developing process dribbled on the negative. When it was wiped away, it smeared and that's what the stretched bit is.

  7. #7
    Member Fritriac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    50░35'2.06"N, 8░31'51.24"E
    Posts
    37

    Default

    What about a simple damage of the film?
    ... but never eat the yellow snow! (Inuit wisdom)

  8. #8
    Super Moderator Munden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fritriac View Post
    What about a simple damage of the film?
    Yes, two of us have already stated that in the comments. Read back up through them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •