Question: when is a meteor not a meteor?
Answer: when it is seen to be performing manoeuvres that are impossible for a lump of inanimate rock to perform.
Please take a look at the picture below.
If you look carefully at this drawing - and study what some of the 'meteors' illustrated are shown to be doing – then compare this with the hard facts known about the behaviour of actual meteors; you will be forced to the conclusion that some of the objects depicted here cannot be meteors. They cannot be meteors because they are performing manoeuvres that lumps of inanimate rock cannot possibly perform.
Now, before we move on, I would ask you to pay close attention to the amount of detail shown in this image. Look at the clearly outlined shrubbery shown in the foreground. Make note of the expertly drawn reflections of the descending meteors in the waters of the lake to the right. I ask you to do this as I will be returning to this image (or another version of it to be more precise) at the end of this article.
I would also ask you to pay careful attention to the way in which the artist here (I'll be introducing him to you later ) has pictured the majority of the meteors. That is: behaving in typical meteoric fashion, following a curved parabola to earth.
We can now begin examining the anomalies. Please watch this slide show.
With this sequence I've isolated (with box-outs) two of the anomalous 'meteors' that you need to be focussing on. One is clearly shown executing a right angle turn manoeuvre – while the other appears to have changed direction completely - and decided to go back up, after swooping down low, just above the lake. (NB. Please note: there appears to be two 'meteors' performing this 'low swoop' - in coordination with each other - in the original image.
Now for the box-outs. You can see that I've picked out certain features with star bursts. These star bursts are intended to draw your attention to the fact that these 'meteors' possess both a 'head', and a 'tail'. Let me explain. Most meteors, or shooting stars, are mere specks of dust that come in from space and burn up with a flash – often in less than a second - as they hit the upper atmosphere. Others are much longer lived. These are rocks: of varying sizes, that penetrate much deeper into our atmosphere at high speed: typically 36,000 mph or faster. The friction caused by their passage through the air causes these rocks to heat up and glow. This friction also abrades the surface of the rock/meteor so that a glowing tail of hot meteoritic material/dust forms in its wake.
This is what you are looking at in the image above: meteors that all feature both a 'head' (the rock) and a 'tail'. I'm stressing this because there are those that would have you believe otherwise. Some people will tell you that the – apparent – right angle turn shown here: and both the 'U' shaped upswings, are the result of a meteor generated phenomenon known as a 'persistent train' being distorted by the wind.
OK. Let's have a look at this. So the anomalous shapes/tracks we see are the reult of wind distortion acting upon just three of the many meteor tracks shown. Really. What about the rest? Why aren't they all affected by the wind?
Now listen up. There probably are wind distorted 'persistent trains' featured in this drawing of the 1868 Leonid Meteor Storm. You will find them indicated by arrows in the sequence. These aren't clouds.
It's about time we took a closer look at these persistent trains – don't you think?
Now if you google the term: 'persistent trains', you will come across different interpretations, here's just a couple.
Persistent trains are the vaporized remains of the tiny meteoroid. The dust is blown around by upper level winds in Earth’s atmosphere.
The Free Dictionary
The luminous trail of ionized particles left by a meteor and visible to the naked eye for periods typically less than one second.
For something really technical (this is an actual research paper available for download) try this:
(NB. If you download and read this pdf you will find out that researchers sometimes fire sampling rockets into the tails of meteors to gather dust particles for analysis.)
But what does a persistent train actually look like?
Looks like a lightning strike doesn't it. Well, this is hardly surprising. Both lightning strikes and persistent trains are composed of highly energetic charged particles. Or, to put it another way, both are plasmas. And there's also another commonality shared by them: they can both be 'seen' on radar screens.
(NB. In some cases persistent trains have continued emitting VHF radio waves for over ten minutes: IE long after disappearing from view in the visible spectrum.)
The image above is actually the first in a series of sixteen captured by members of the International Meteor Organization (IMO) during an expedition to Mongolia in 1998.
Here's the complete series:
If you visit the webpage in question ( here's the link: http://www.imo.net/video/examples/example5 ) you will discover that the 16 images: which are sequential, illustrate the formation of a persistent train. Or do they? Something else you will discover on the International Meteor Organizations' website is that this sequence was shot with a video camera: so where's the movie? They do provide a link to an MP4 purportedly showing this sequence but the link didn't work (all l got is a 'page not found' message). In fact, most of the internal links on the IMO's site didn't work either. Try them, you might have better luck than me.
All is not, however, lost. I really wanted to view these 16 frames in the manner intended by the guy that filmed them. So I decided to indulge in a little re-animation. I hope you like the result.
(NB. The green screen indicates the end/start of the sequence.)
There seems to be a lot going on here doesn't there. Now when viewing this unusual event do you see what I see: structure, for instance? Do you see articulated cohesion, perhaps? This particular 'persistent train' does seem to 'hang-together': even if only briefly, as it develops - don't you think?
We need to take a closer look at this. Let's start breaking things down. This phenomenon appears to feature distinct sections that are joined together by two pivot points. So let's give these names for easy reference.
Okay. We have our sections and the pivot points that join them together.
Next we need to look at the way in which the different sections of our 'arm' move/articulate in relation to each other.
This next image illustrates the starting positions – and the directions in which they will begin to move - of the different sections.
(NB. Please note: when I'm using terminology such as: ascending, descending, up, down ETC – I'm refering to what we are seeing on screen – this mightn't, necessarily, equate with how the 'train' moved across [?] the sky.)
We now need to watch the sequence again.
What you need to watch for:
What then, are the red arrows showing us?
Let's deal with the arrow to the left of the screen first. Here we appear to be seeing an object that has become detached from the plasma structure, that tags along with it for a while as it moves downwards, and then becomes stationary as the train continues to descend. Weird or what?
Next we have the arrow on the right. Here it gets even weirder. This is picking out an object that blasts upward from the 'wrist' just as the rotating 'hand' has reached the perpendicular. What's more, it is doing this against the flow : in opposition to the motion of the structure as a whole. When first I saw this I was tempted to think that it might be a sampling/research rocket aimed at the train by scientists (or even a ground to air missile). But, given that this sequence was filmed in Mongolia – and no mention is made of a rocket by the IMO members who were there on the ground (scanning the sky with military grade image intensifying technology) – I discounted this theory. So the rapidly ascending object relates to this enigmatic plasma entity – not some outside force or agency.
Now the question – at this point - has to be: was either, or perhaps both, of the objects indicated: both of which qualify as UFOs in the absolute sense of the term, responsible for what we are witnessing here?
This may well be the case. UFOs have, after all, been associated with electromagnetic disturbances. They've shut down the electrical systems in cars for instance – and, incredibly, the targetting avionics of fighter aircraft as the pilot prepared to open fire on them. (There are witnesses to such things: people that have direct experience of these events. Check out Robert Salas' testimony covering the 1967 Malmstrom Airbase incident.) For myself, I would argue that UFOs exploit a polarized plasma field to enable them work their magic: such as appearing from nowhere and disappearing (I would say 'de-materializing') along with performing high-speed manoeuvres that defy the inertial laws of physics and jumping across vast, interstellar (maybe even inter-galactic) distances instantaneously.
If you would like to understand how they do this, how alien (space-ripping) technology works: please download and read this pdf:
(NB. Please note: this document also doubles-up as a Grand Unified Theory of Space and Time.)
To return to our plasma entity. The structure does – after a little while – begin to disperse: and I've no doubt that the wind would have had something to do with this. But were the effects of the wind solely responsible for the way in which this structure evolved over time: and the other weird phenomena associated with it? I don't think so. Nor, I suspect, do you.
There is also another reason why I believe that this, and related events aren't, necessarily, the result of rarely seen natural developments. If such occurrences were purely due to mundane, easily explicable happenstance – why, then, are steps being taken to hide them?
I'm now going to show you an instance of digital vandalism; the sole purpose of which is to hide the truth.
Remember this? (I'll forgive you if you don't.) This is, of course, another version of the picture that I used to introduce the subject matter of this article: malformed meteors doing things they really shouldn't. It's quite dark isn't it? If you were to come across this old lithographic print on, say, Wikipedia (from where I downloaded it) – would you pay it much attention? Would you take the time to really scrutinize it to try and work out what was going on? Maybe you would sit – shaking your head – wondering why an artist would even bother to produce such a murky image: an illustration that illustrates almost nothing.
But, enough of the rhetorical questions. You know what's going on here don't you. You know why this artists' impression of the 1868 Leonid meteor storm is so devoid of detail. But, before we start handing down judgement on this criminal misrepresentation, let's meet the artist responsible for the original: an artist whose stock-in-trade was his meticulous, even obsessive, attention to detail.
Trouvolet: a French national, emigrated to America in 1852 where he worked as an artist and illustrator. In 1872 he joined the staff of the Harvard College Observatory where he produced astronomical drawings that are now held in several collections across the US.
He is credited with the discovery of 'veiled' sun spots and was honoured, for his contributions in the astronomical field, by having a crater on the moon named after him. So, when it comes to the importance/ranking of luminaries in the history of astronomy, this guy is up there with the likes of Tycho Brahe.
None of this, however, mattered to the mean-minded, truth denying little shit that decided Trouvolet's diligent observations had revealed too much and needed – therefore - to be consigned to darkness..
To him I would say: :"The truth will not be denied. So go f<ck yourself".
Now an important note. Trouvolet's drawing: The November Meteors, was based on observations made of the Leonid Meteor Storm that lit up the sky on the night of November 13-14 1868. However, if you look up the annual arrival of the Leonids on google you will probably be told that the best time to see them: this year, will be on the night of 17-18 November. I would advise that you be ready on both nights. Remember, you aren't just looking out for meteors doing what meteors do. You are also looking out for: and hopefully recording, meteors doing stuff that they shouldn't.
My Friends, the next time plasmatic fire flames across the skies, it mightn't be over a remote region of Mongolia, it might be directly over your head. So be ready.
Acknowledgments and links:
Many thanks to the International Meteor Organization
The Leonid meteors' parent comet is thought to be Tempel Tuttle.
Read more here:
If you want to see a meteor exploding followed by wind dispersal of the results: go here:
The author of this work claims 'fair use': with regard to all materials used, in the interests of open and informed debate.