Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Skydiver's Helmet Cam Captures a Falling Meteor

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the that's-a-close-one dept.

Space 142

reifman (786887) writes "Anders Helstrup went skydiving nearly two years ago near Hedmark, Norway and while he didn't realize it at the time, when he reviewed the footage taken by two cameras fixed to his helmet during the dive, he saw a rock plummet past him. He took it to experts and they realized he had captured a meteorite falling during its dark flight — when it has been slowed by atmospheric braking, and has cooled and is no longer luminous."

cancel ×

142 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Falling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659089)

How you figure?

That's ... (1)

invictusvoyd (3546069) | about 7 months ago | (#46659111)

One lucky skydiver!!!

That's nothing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659405)

I caught an STD while skydiving.

Re:That's ... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46659463)

One lucky skydiver!!!

Especially if he's a Bob Shaw [google.com] fan! ;-)

Re:That's ... (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 7 months ago | (#46659475)

I dunno if you mean because his cam caught the meteorite, or because he didn't get hit by it. ;-)

Two years? (1)

sTERNKERN (1290626) | about 7 months ago | (#46659125)

How come it made into the news now but not at that time?

Re:Two years? (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 7 months ago | (#46659129)

Because he didn't look at the footage until now?

Re:Two years? (1)

sTERNKERN (1290626) | about 7 months ago | (#46659151)

He said he even felt something strange during the flight and checked the video after touching the ground.

Re:Two years? (4, Funny)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | about 7 months ago | (#46659395)

He said he even felt something strange during the flight and checked the video after touching the ground.

I can't wait to see what kind of super power he develops.

Re:Two years? (3, Informative)

theguyfromsaturn (802938) | about 7 months ago | (#46660025)

Obviously he's to become the living embodiement of Thor. All the clues are there.... the space rock (pretty cool hammer from the sky). He's also Norwegian... descendent of the Vikings.

Re:Two years? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 7 months ago | (#46661339)

So, that was Meow Meow whizzing past him?

Re:Two years? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659133)

Convincing 'shops take time, y'know...

Re:Two years? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659167)

Because they are trying to get people involved in the search for the meteorite.

FTFA: 'Since the search for the meteorite has come up empty so far, Helstrup’s story and video has been released in an effort to recruit more people to look for the rock.'

RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659221)

Article notes that they kept it quiet so the geologists could have a look for the rock - I assume these things are pretty rare and perhaps there's even a concern a treasure hunter might get there first and take it? (perhaps a geologist can give a more informed opinion here....) . Certainly I have a geologist friend who was flown from Europe to the deserts of Australia on more than one occasion to look for meteorites because they are so rare... apparently much easier (comparatively speaking) to spot in a bare desert than lush green European landscapes.

The article suggests they looked for it, couldn't find it, and are now asking the public to help find it. Plus perhaps it took a while before the sky diver realised something had happened after a few views of the footage, he might not have realised at the time.

Re:RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock (5, Informative)

heypete (60671) | about 7 months ago | (#46659413)

Article notes that they kept it quiet so the geologists could have a look for the rock - I assume these things are pretty rare and perhaps there's even a concern a treasure hunter might get there first and take it? (perhaps a geologist can give a more informed opinion here....) . Certainly I have a geologist friend who was flown from Europe to the deserts of Australia on more than one occasion to look for meteorites because they are so rare... apparently much easier (comparatively speaking) to spot in a bare desert than lush green European landscapes.

The article suggests they looked for it, couldn't find it, and are now asking the public to help find it. Plus perhaps it took a while before the sky diver realised something had happened after a few views of the footage, he might not have realised at the time.

I'm not a geologist, but I do research on meteorites and have participated in a meteorite search expedition sponsored by the Swiss and Omani governments. You're right: there is a concern that private collectors might find meteorites first. In the case of the expedition I was on, that was a major concern: we were plotting the distribution of thousands of fragments of one meteorite strewn over a large (several hundred square kilometers) area. Each of the fragments we found were photographed where they lay from several angles, the location recorded using GPS, given a catalog number, collected using clean tools etc. Private collectors often don't bother doing this, so it makes it difficult to identify where meteorites in private collections came from. This makes it difficult for researchers who are interested in the precise distribution of the fragments (some of my colleagues are able to use the distribution of light and heavy fragments from this meteorite to determine the speed of the wind at different altitudes when the meteorite passed through the atmosphere, and this requires precise knowledge of where the fragments were found). My particular research is less concerned with location, but it's still nice to know the provenance of meteorites.

Of course, we don't begrudge individuals finding meteorites and wanting to keep or sell them, but we'd really appreciate it if people called their local university (or other relevant authority) so researchers could log the find and perhaps keep a sample for scientific purposes.

Re:RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659495)

They do have a camera recording. I wonder it it were possible to triangulate the approximate position of the skydiver using the geographic features in view and refine the probability distribution of the stone's impact point.

Re:RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 7 months ago | (#46661429)

They have two camera recordings. Triangulation shouldn't be too difficult with two semi-clear views from very different angles.

Re:RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock (3, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | about 7 months ago | (#46659511)

There is a similar issue with Civil war artifacts in the US. Relics are worth $$ in the collectors market, but by law you are not allowed to use things like metal detectors on known battlefields. However a couple of years a local guy started doing exactly that. He found, dug up and sold stuff, but with no regards to keeping any records. When he finally got busted the historians didn't know whether to laugh or cry as they now had access to a huge collection of artifacts, but with zero provenance.

Re:RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46662271)

Known battlefields? The battle of Westport covered most of south midtown Kansas City. As the civil war was the end of set formation battles I'm sure many battles extended far beyond the official 'battlefields'.

Would make finding old pipes and such a real bitch if metal detectors were banned over large urban areas.

Re:Two years? (0)

u38cg (607297) | about 7 months ago | (#46659271)

They kept it quiet to try and find the rock before a collector did.

No stealing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659287)

I'm Norwegian, I watched the program on NRK. (It is a Science program for kids on our national public television.)

The reason they kept it secret for almost two years was to avoid treasure hunters who would find and remove the meteorite, but now, after several fruitless attempts to find it they showed the film in order to get more people involved in the search.

Terje

Re:Two years? (-1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 7 months ago | (#46659359)

How come it made into the news now but not at that time?

Two years is a long time. It seems it is the time it takes to a non-professional to tamper with a video, after the guy got the idea that the video would be more fun having a meteorite falling along with him. Seriously, a falling meteorite? Even if the camera would have caught a real meteorite, we'd have seen a blurry line, at best. The images breakdown clearly shows a number of photographs that have been added to the video.

Re:Two years? (1)

heypete (60671) | about 7 months ago | (#46659419)

How come it made into the news now but not at that time?

Two years is a long time. It seems it is the time it takes to a non-professional to tamper with a video, after the guy got the idea that the video would be more fun having a meteorite falling along with him. Seriously, a falling meteorite? Even if the camera would have caught a real meteorite, we'd have seen a blurry line, at best. The images breakdown clearly shows a number of photographs that have been added to the video.

If the meteorite and the skydiver were moving at (or near) their respective terminal velocities, why do you think that you'd see only a blurry line? The meteorite is not traveling at orbital velocities that deep into the atmosphere (or else it'd be glowing).

Re:Two years? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46659505)

The camera used is not likely to have a (virtual) shutter angle of ~180 degrees in daylight. You're not going to find any motion blur there, what with the short exposures.

Re:Two years? (4, Insightful)

fellip_nectar (777092) | about 7 months ago | (#46659539)

The skydiver had his 'chute open (so probably moving at around 30kph) and the rock was said to be moving at ~300kph... So the rock was passing him at ~75m/s

If the video was shot at 25fps progressive (This is in PAL-land, remember), the rock would move around 3m between frames. Which pretty much matches up to that composite image from TFA.

Re:Two years? (1)

Paezley (235267) | about 7 months ago | (#46662017)

Vertical descent speed under canopy can vary depending on canopy but generally you will see speeds in the range of around 4-6 m/s or 14.4-21.6 kph or 8.95-13.4 mph (unless in an aggressive diving turn, which can increase speeds significantly, but that is not what this jumper was doing).

Re:Two years? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#46659559)

Because they've been trying to find the actual rock and didn't want anyone else to know about it and find it first.

They're showing it now because they're actually trying to get more help finding it since nothing has turned up so far.

This is actual news for nerds, so I read the article.

Hoax? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659201)

When I read about this yesterday on HN there were quite a few people who suspected that it was a hoax due to the unreasonably slow speed of the "meteor".

Re:Hoax? (2)

Goaway (82658) | about 7 months ago | (#46659253)

Because as we all know, HN users are experts at meteorites. They are also not at all interested in trying to convince people of how smart they are by calling others wrong.

Re:Hoax? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659389)

The astronomers at mpml are also quite doubtful.

Slow speed ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659255)

Well, that's what I felt, but then I figure that the man was also in free fall a few seconds before, I'm not so sure now.
However his wing is wide open when the stone passes by, it should have slowed him at lot, so... It should be compared.

Re:Hoax? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#46659383)

If they trusted the article when it said:

It rock zooms by at about :20 in this video:

Then they were looking at another skydiver. The rock actually goes by at about 0:16s

Re:Hoax? (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 7 months ago | (#46660905)

They trimmed off the "crappy animation dubbed with rock music" intro.

Re:Hoax? (2)

dominux (731134) | about 7 months ago | (#46659471)

Burned out meteors have slowed down to terminal velocity (or close to it) so they would be going at a similar speed to a rock tossed from a plane, several times faster than the terminal velocity of a human, but only a few hundred meters per second, the video is within the plausible zone for speed. Pretty astonishing bit of video.

Re: Hoax? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46660403)

The reason it'd be going so visibly slow is that by the point it's reached 10 thousand feed it's already shed a lot of its speed and would be at or approaching its terminal velocity. Those flat edges make for quite a high coefficient of drag, doubly so when it's tumbling.

Re:Hoax? (1)

grub (11606) | about 7 months ago | (#46660503)

The astrophysicists at Adobe told me that it looks 'shopped.

At a press conference this week... (1, Offtopic)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 7 months ago | (#46659223)

A spokesdemigod for the Mount Olympus Police Department praised the professionalism of the department's officers who he said had 'acted with restraint' and 'in full compliance with policy' in firing warning shots at a mortal suspected of trespassing and resisting arrest. "Thankfully, deterrence proved sufficient and neither the Olympians nor the interloper were harmed in the encounter."

Odds in the virtual world. (0)

geekmux (1040042) | about 7 months ago | (#46659231)

Every time I hear of a story with insane odds and think just how impossible it is, I'm reminded of just how chaotic things are when playing popular first-person shooters like Black Ops or MW3.

That knife you threw across the map that bounced off the aircraft flying by, hit three rooftops and a radar dish before tumbling down a gutter and catching a rusty nail on a crate just right to flip the knife in the air and kill your opponent from 300 yards away was just as insane with odds.

Games have shown me quite often that shit happens and the impossible is quite often possible.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, physics aren't exactly the same in FPS, and truly impossible shit happens. People still believe a magic bullet killed JFK too, so I'd question people's ability to understand physics before defending inaccuracies in virtualspace.)

Re:Odds in the virtual world. (0)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 7 months ago | (#46659425)

It happens in good games too. In Counterstrike 1.x, a real headshot from highly explosive grenade is an extremely rare occurrence, I've seen it happen exactly once!
It's not just a grenade hitting your face (or head in general), detonation needs to happen at the same time. Enemy player maybe needs to be injured beforehand, as there may be no specific damage value for a grenade headshot. I'm doubting my memory, but I'm pretty sure it happened.

Grenade Headshot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46660425)

If you mean a death from an impact from the grenade, as of CS:S and CS:GO, a flying grenade of any kind will do 1HP damage, possibly more for a head hit. Might have to try that out...

Re:Grenade Headshot (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 7 months ago | (#46660907)

I've just read that in a wiki ; for old CS (1.5 and 1.6) grenades never do damage on impact.

Re:Odds in the virtual world. (2)

Tom (822) | about 7 months ago | (#46659477)

Every time I hear of a story with insane odds and think just how impossible it is,

The thing is that we have human brains evolved to cope with everyday situations. We fail spectacularily at the very small and very large. We fail utterly and catastrophically when those two meet. "Black Swan" is a great book on that topic.

The thing with the highly improbably is the scale at which they happen. We have close to 7 billion people living on that planet. Which - in the words of Tim Minchin - means that one in a million chance events happen all the time.

Literally.

If something has a one in a million chance of happening in a lifetime, then it will happen to 7,000 people who are currently alive. Assuming 70 years life-expectancy (for simplicity and because it gives a nice round number) that means it happens 100 times every year, or roughly every 3-4 days.

That's counter-intuitive, isn't it? Globally speaking, "one in a million" events happen twice a week.

And "one in a million per year" events happen almost every hour.

Depends on the scale (1)

erlegreer (1994842) | about 7 months ago | (#46660953)

It's possible that the estimated "one in a million" odds already factor in the whole population, instead of meaning one in a million chance for each person.

Like, if you could estimate that there is a 5% chance that a gold coin burried at a beach will be found ever, that's obviously not per person because after only 20 people walk by, the coin is likely to have been found.

Re:Depends on the scale (1)

Tom (822) | about 7 months ago | (#46662437)

I'm talking statistics. You are talking individual events. Those two things are not in the same class of things.

Re:Odds in the virtual world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46660177)

Every time I hear of a story with insane odds and think just how impossible it is

A function of how detailed your story is.

Re:Odds in the virtual world. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46660743)

Life lessons from playing first person shooters... perhaps you need to revaluate your life.

Ummm, probably not (1)

kooky45 (785515) | about 7 months ago | (#46659261)

More likely he laid has parachute on the ground for packing and accidentally picked up a rock without noticing and it was ejected when he pulled the chord. They probably can't find the "meteorite" because it's just a rock sitting amongst identical rocks.

Re:Ummm, probably not (2)

KreAture (105311) | about 7 months ago | (#46659297)

Oh yeah, he wouldn't notice a 10lb rock in his schute... That'd be real safe.
Have you ever packed a schute? It's quite cramped you know and a medium watermelon is quite noiticable.

Re:Ummm, probably not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659491)

That wasn't a 10lb rock. Much smaller. It would be easy to get that lost in the silk when packing it.

Re:Ummm, probably not (1)

Thumper_SVX (239525) | about 7 months ago | (#46660339)

There's almost zero indication of the size of the rock in question. The background is clouds and there's no absolute way to tell how close that rock is to the camera lens. Could be 20 feet, could be 2 inches.

Re:Ummm, probably not (1)

kooky45 (785515) | about 7 months ago | (#46660917)

Just watched it again frame by frame and the pebble falls directly from his parachute as it unfurls above his head. Nuff said!

Re:Ummm, probably not (1)

Paezley (235267) | about 7 months ago | (#46662069)

Have you ever packed a schute?

Nobody who packs parachutes calls them 'schutes' so I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you are not a rigger or even a sport jumper :) There is a lot of bulk compressed into a small space, you can easily not feel an object inside of the parachute when you are packing. Especially if you are packing quickly in order to make a short call to get on the next load.

Re:Ummm, probably not (3, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#46659393)

More likely he laid has parachute on the ground for packing and accidentally picked up a rock without noticing and it was ejected when he pulled the chord.

Which then defied gravity by matching speed with him as he slowed for more than 5 seconds before dropping past?

Re:Ummm, probably not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659503)

The rock never matched speed with him.

Re:Ummm, probably not (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#46659541)

Then what was it doing in the 5 seconds between the canopy opening (and ejecting the rock, according to the poster above) and the time it zipped past the skydiver?

Speed matching rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46660459)

Unless that rock was made of an extremely light, porous mineral (Pumice?) its density would be much higher than a human being and roughly spherical shape lends to a much lower coefficient of drag than a norwegian in a wingsuit.

Re:Ummm, probably not (1)

kosh271 (2036124) | about 7 months ago | (#46659531)

The timing of the object falling past him is not long after the chute fully deploys. I could easily see the object being popped of of the top of his chute and then falling past him.

Another possible explanation is that the object fell from either the plane or another skydiver (as he was first out of the plane). I would deem this unlikely, but far more likely than a meteorite.

Re:Ummm, probably not (2)

RPI Geek (640282) | about 7 months ago | (#46659983)

I could easily see the object being popped of of the top of his chute and then falling past him.

Because everyone knows that parachutes are ejected with explosive charges, or in the more modern versions, a bottle of compressed air.

I have gone skydiving, and the acceleration (or decelaration if you prefer) is rather violent. Without doing the math, I very much doubt that anything would be "popped off the top of the chute".

Another possible explanation is that the object fell from either the plane or another skydiver (as he was first out of the plane). I would deem this unlikely, but far more likely than a meteorite.

A rock of that size does not simply find its way into a plane, or into a skydiver's pocket. Gravel-sized rocks, sure. Something the size of your fist? No, just no.

Re:Ummm, probably not (2)

Paezley (235267) | about 7 months ago | (#46661699)

Because everyone knows that parachutes are ejected with explosive charges, or in the more modern versions, a bottle of compressed air.

No, sport parachutes are deployed by hand either with a pilot chute deployed by hand or by a spring loaded pilot chute deployed by a ripcord. There is an automatic activation device for the reserve parachute that uses a small pyrotechnic charge inside a cylinder that propels a cutter to sever a fabric closing loop that allows a spring loaded pilot chute to deploy.

I have gone skydiving, and the acceleration (or decelaration if you prefer) is rather violent. Without doing the math, I very much doubt that anything would be "popped off the top of the chute".

It could easily happen depending on where the object was. if it was inside of the parachute or inside of the deployment bag.

A rock of that size does not simply find its way into a plane, or into a skydiver's pocket. Gravel-sized rocks, sure. Something the size of your fist? No, just no.

Can easily find its way into a parachute, however. People who don't skydive think that parachutes are packed with surgical precision. Not the case at all.

Re:Ummm, probably not (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 7 months ago | (#46660183)

He was first out of the plane but one of only 2 in a wing suit, by the time he opened his chute and the rock fell past the other divers were well below him and you can see where the other wingsuited diver was in the video. Even the plane was below him by this point of the flight. If it came from his chute you'll have to explain to me how it's moving at a few hundred miles per hour relative to him (easily calculated based on frame to frame movement).

Re:Ummm, probably not (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 7 months ago | (#46659971)

Probably its a piece of the aircraft he just jumped out of that fell off

Re:Ummm, probably not (5, Informative)

Paezley (235267) | about 7 months ago | (#46660923)

I am a licensed skydiver and I can tell you that I have seen objects fall out of my canopy on opening and I've seen videos of others that look very similar to this.

It is actually very easy to explain the delay once you understand how modern square ram air parachutes are designed.

Modern canopies are roughly rectangular and are composed of 7 - 9 cells in parallel.

Each cell has an opening at the nose of the canopy that is roughly rectangular. The cell tapers down until the topskin and bottom skin meet at the tail. This creates the parafoil (wing) that looks a lot like an airplane.

On the ground, it is very easy for objects to end up inside of a cell. When you pack the parachute, these objects can move deeper into the cell (maybe all the way to the tail).

Opening is a very violent process during which the parachute expands from being in a bag approximately the size of a woman's purse to full flight which, depending on the parachute, can be anywhere from ~100 - 400 square feet.

My parachute is a Sabre 2 170 which means it is just under 20 feet wide and 7 feet deep.

This means that on opening, an object in the tail of the parachute would have to move forward 7 feet. Depending on the pitch of the canopy and what maneuvers I am executing, the combination of the angle and gravity could easily keep an object inside the canopy for more than 5 seconds. The object (even a good sized rock) would stay in there for the entire flight.

You have to also consider that this was a wingsuit deployment, which has different opening characteristics than a traditional vertical deployment because the jumper has much more forward velocity and less vertical velocity. This would affect the orientation of the canopy and would have an effect on how objects inside the canopy would move around.

I have personally seen grass and twigs come out of my canopy. I have seen a video from a friend who saw several socks come out of his nose as his canopy had been sitting unpacked next to a laundry basket the night before. Parachute riggers that do inspections or repairs on canopies have great stories of things they have found inside canopies including phones and drugs.

So while the meteorite story is exciting, the idea of a rock falling in your immediate airspace doesn't sound very impossible if you're a skydiver. I'd not call it common, but it's certainly not a rare occurrence. While not the most newsworthy, the simplest explanation is the guy packed a rock in his parachute and god knows how he didn't notice when he packed but it wouldn't be the first rock to take make a skydive.

Re:Ummm, probably not (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#46660987)

Well, if there's any post in this discussion that deserves +5 Informative, yours was it.

several socks come out of his nose

He should see a doctor. Sounds like he's got pica.

Re:Ummm, probably not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659431)

Typical Slashdot, spend 17 seconds on an article and be convinced that you understand more than those who spent hours, days or years on a subject!

Re:Ummm, probably not (2)

geirlk (171706) | about 7 months ago | (#46659673)

Typical Slashdot, spend 17 seconds on an article and be convinced that you understand more than those who spent hours, days or years on a subject!

Subjetively, I've spent hours, days and years on Slashdot.

That's got to count for something, right?

Re:Ummm, probably not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46661223)

Typical Slashdot, spend 17 seconds on an article and be convinced that you understand more than those who spent hours, days or years on a subject!

Subjetively, I've spent hours, days and years on Slashdot.

That's got to count for something, right?

Oh yeah? Well I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Two rocks! (3, Interesting)

KreAture (105311) | about 7 months ago | (#46659351)

Notice in the video right before "the rock" flies past there is a spec in the distance too, lower left side of screen.
This may be another fragment of the same meteorite as it broke up and would support the "larger rock breaking up" theory.
It also fits with the fresh fracture-surface seen on the large object.

Why did noone in the video mention this second piece?

Re:Two rocks! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#46659375)

In the main view, or the upper left picture? How many seconds in?

Re:Two rocks! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659437)

Consider that the description says "It rock zooms by at about :20 in this video:" (sic), when it's clearly another skydiver at that time. The meteor is at 0:15 (in the upper left window with the back camera view). In another video, a geologists tries to deduct some information about the meteor by looking at still frames extracted from the video: He clearly interprets compression artifacts (the ringing around sharp edges) as features of the meteor. Nobody appears to have taken rolling shutter into account either. It appears to be as thoroughly and scientifically investigated as a UFO sighting.

Re:Two rocks! (1)

KreAture (105311) | about 7 months ago | (#46659501)

Actually you are probably right.
"My second rock" is most likely the other wingsuit diver far away still. It's in the slow motion part of the video about 2:12 right about the Y in the english translation text: "- Yes it's... My goodness."

Re:Two rocks! (2)

FlyveHest (105693) | about 7 months ago | (#46659507)

No one on the grassy knoll talks about the second stone!

This claim is nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659407)

I am a skydiver with similar gear. It is vastly more likely that this is a small stone that got packed in with his main parachute and fell past him after he deployed.

Re:This claim is nonsense (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#46659547)

What was it doing in the 5 seconds between his chute opening and the moment the rock goes by?

Re:This claim is nonsense (1)

Thumper_SVX (239525) | about 7 months ago | (#46660437)

Accelerating?

Re:This claim is nonsense (1)

Mr0bvious (968303) | about 7 months ago | (#46660667)

Sitting on top of the chute before falling off?

Re:This claim is nonsense (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#46659579)

Did you even bother to look at the physical size of the rock? Its not a pebble.

If you're a sky diver ... and you think its possible to pack a watermelon in your chute ... you have to be the dumbest skydiver in existence.

I think you'd notice something the size of a small watermelon when packing.

Re:This claim is nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659625)

How big was it then? It's not like somebody grabbed it and measured it, is it? An object half the size looks exactly the same from half the distance, you know.

Re:This claim is nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46660259)

Occam's Razor

Something from the plane or from the pack was what I thinking while reading the article as well.

Re:This claim is nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46662163)

That's nopt really how Occam's Razor works.

We know that meteors randomly strike the Earth and that at the altitude of the video the meteor would be traveling at roughly terminal velocity. So no unproven assumptions need to be made to conclude that a falling rock could be a meteor.

WOW... first it was the skydiver... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659557)

WOW... first it was the skydiver...now you tell me his camera ALSO captured the meteorite.... /. rocks.

OT: Obnoxious Noah Movie Ad (0)

hey! (33014) | about 7 months ago | (#46659611)

What's with the obnoxious, non-mutable autoplay ad for this movie? Half the sites I visit are playing this, some times more than once on a page so it comes out garbled because the copies don't sync. This has to be one of the biggest Internet ad campaigns ever.

And since when does Slashdot carry ads that autoplay audio? That's low-rent stuff. The worst thing with this ad is that the player presents a mute button that doesn't mute, it starts the replay over again. The only thing you can do is mute your entire computer, or close the tab with the ad.

Well, I'm not muting my entire computer. I'm closing the tab. So see you later, Slashdot, until the stupid ad campaign is over. And I'm not going to see the stupid movie.

See you later, Slashdot; I'm out of here until the ad campaign is off. And I'm not going to see the stupid movie.

Re:OT: Obnoxious Noah Movie Ad (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about 7 months ago | (#46660625)

I did not get that, but I've commenced a Sears boycott since that full-volume commercial hijacked my computer at 3AM last week (it woke up two people that I know of, got the dog out of bed, and probably disturbed the downstairs neighbor.) I don't know how many others adhere to this, but I have a strict policy of depriving revenue to offensive businesses.

Re:OT: Obnoxious Noah Movie Ad (2)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 7 months ago | (#46660959)

I have yet to hear an ad on Slashdot, maybe you guys got 3rd party adware?

Ice from his plane or another plane ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46659631)

Could it be a chunk of ice from his plane or another plane ?

Could the bird have dropped the word? (5, Funny)

DrPBacon (3044515) | about 7 months ago | (#46659645)

Did nobody else see the bird fly past a second after the shiny rock....? His parachute was deployed, so he wasn't *that* high up. If I was a bird that just saw a man fall from an aeroplane and then explode into a giant jellyfish, I'd drop whatever shit I was carrying too.

African or European? (1)

erlegreer (1994842) | about 7 months ago | (#46660825)

African or European?

Re:Could the bird have dropped the word? (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 7 months ago | (#46661365)

Are you saying it was a swallow carrying a coconut?

Now I understand... (4, Funny)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | about 7 months ago | (#46659717)

...why skydivers wear an helmet.

More technical information also provided (3, Informative)

SmilingBoy (686281) | about 7 months ago | (#46660243)

I happened to read about this story last night, so here's a few more interesting links:

More technical report: http://norskmeteornettverk.no/wordpress/?p=1399 [norskmeteornettverk.no]

YouTube channel with the original, non-edited videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/DarkFlightMeteorite/videos [youtube.com]

First I thought it sounded like a hoax promoting a camera or skydiving equipment, but I now think it is legit. Or a very elaborate hoax!

Re:More technical information also provided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46660463)

More info & interveiw (in English!) from NRK, the norwegian state broadcaster (similar to BBC):
http://www.nrk.no/viten/skydiver-nearly-struck-by-meteorite-1.11646757

Re:More technical information also provided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46660653)

So, you think it's legit, or fake.

Re:More technical information also provided (1)

SmilingBoy (686281) | about 7 months ago | (#46660699)

I think it is most likely legit, or such an elaborate hoax that even the Norwegian state television fell for it while producing a pretty long report (linked by the AC responding to my GP post), which I think is very unlikely.

Re:More technical information also provided (1)

kyrsjo (2420192) | about 7 months ago | (#46662387)

AC was me on a different computer, didn't log in... I'll repost here for visibility:

More info & interveiw (in English!) from NRK, the norwegian state broadcaster (similar to BBC):
http://www.nrk.no/viten/skydiv... [www.nrk.no]

Re:More technical information also provided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46660733)

Now if he caught the thing, that would have been truly epic.

"I caught a meteor with my hand...while SKYDIVING!!!"

Sperm whale and a bowl of petunias (0)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 7 months ago | (#46660477)

Better a small rock than a sperm whale and a bowl of petunias

Why it is not white-hot? (1)

Max_W (812974) | about 7 months ago | (#46660661)

Should not it be glowing from atmosphere resistance?

Re:Why it is not white-hot? (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | about 7 months ago | (#46661023)

That far into the atmosphere, it's lost it's orbital velocity and has reached terminal velocity. It's probably doing in the neighborhood of about 200-300 kph.

Re:Why it is not white-hot? (3, Informative)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 7 months ago | (#46661243)

It's not exposed to atmospheric heat (from compression, not friction) for long enough. It's heated for seconds, and the heat is so intense that it blasts off outer layers instead of dispersing into the body -- which, remember, is at cryogenic temperatures when it hits the atmosphere.

The light from meteors is nearly all from compressed atmosphere and vaporized rock/metal. All the material that's hot enough to glow gets knocked off.

Tin foil hat on (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 7 months ago | (#46661369)

The 2nd of a storm of asteroids being sent by aliens to exterminate life on earth. The first hit flight MH370. Wait, make that an adamanium/vibranium hat.

yoU FAIL it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46662297)

tto, can be a [goat.cx]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?