I can't seem to find the part where the author provides any evidence that the object they mention is extraterrestrial in origin - rather than being, for example, part of the launch vehicle.
Gave up when they introduced the Marilyn Monroe assassination theory.
One of my "priors" is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There's no real evidence at all in that article, just a wobbly pile of theories building on theories.
The problem with that seems to be that an upper stage wouldn’t survive a nuclear blast at close range. How could the upper stage be tumbling out of the fireball?
And why would it be so unusual that the camera operator panned and zoomed to observe at the cost of loss of critical data?
-- below this line are edits made after the thread was flagged to silence discussion, in response --
1. reply to below:
Nice work on the analysis, however you seem to leave out the fireball incinerating the metal, plus X-ray spalling -- the latter a key component of the article and what the Bluegill device was designed to emphasize! Neutrons alone seems to be low balling it. You probably need to rethink this to account for that, as well as check the numbers.
2. other context (including text made invisible by flagging censorship)
article title: 1960s Bluegill Nuclear Test: A Non-Human Craft Fell to Earth
andyjohnson0 comment: I can't seem to find the part where the author provides any evidence that the object they mention is extraterrestrial in origin - rather than being, for example, part of the launch vehicle. Gave up when they introduced the Marilyn Monroe assassination theory.
best comment (mine in reply to the above):
That’s sad for you. What made you give up?
More generally tho: perhaps if you checked your priors safely away before reading the article you’d have an easier time exploring the possibilities?
my later comment (also great):
“extraordinary“, “wobbly“ - assessments, which all depend on priors.Counterpoint to that aphorism is: extraordinary conservatism leads to extraordinary ignorance.
3. Advice to HN:
These sort of articles really should be able to be discussed on HN without people becoming abusively insecure-confident and flagging counterpoints to their priors which they seem to hold with religious fervor. This flagging shuts down discussions and tries to render counterpoints invisible. Be mature, be cool, remain calm and don’t get angry and flag stuff just because it challenges you - and you can discuss the big subjects with big players! :) hahaha
A rocket engine by it's nature is a tough device. Many of them survive orbital entry and that's 30MJ/kg. With the absence of air, only real damaging factor on some device which isn't supposed to function, is neutron flux. Let's suppose the engine was XLR105-5, as used on Atlas-D, the contemporary ICBM. It had a diameter of 3.05m and mass of 460kg.
So we could expect at least some recognisable debris to remain out of a rocket engine that absorbed 460 * 3E7 joules of energy through it's (3.05/2)^2 * PI m2 external projection, or up to 1.9GJ/m2.
A 400kt nuclear device is 1.7E15J, thus (emitting across 4PI steradian of space), this amount of flux is achieved at only 266m distance. So at 266m or so, at least something will remain of the engine, and at 1km, not just the engine will be pretty much intact (that would be damage from entering of the 1st, not upper stage - only damage 1st stage engines get from reentering, is from the ground impact or water damage if falling to the ocean), but even the stage itself will be only partially destroyed.
It's highly unlikely the stage was closer than 1km to the warhead at the moment of detonation.
I can't seem to find the part where the author provides any evidence that the object they mention is extraterrestrial in origin - rather than being, for example, part of the launch vehicle.
Gave up when they introduced the Marilyn Monroe assassination theory.
[flagged]
One of my "priors" is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There's no real evidence at all in that article, just a wobbly pile of theories building on theories.
“extraordinary“, “wobbly“ - assessments, which all depends on priors.
Counterpoint to that aphorism is: extraordinary conservatism leads to extraordinary ignorance.
It's simply the upper stage of the rocket that launched it.
The problem with that seems to be that an upper stage wouldn’t survive a nuclear blast at close range. How could the upper stage be tumbling out of the fireball?
And why would it be so unusual that the camera operator panned and zoomed to observe at the cost of loss of critical data?
-- below this line are edits made after the thread was flagged to silence discussion, in response --
1. reply to below:
Nice work on the analysis, however you seem to leave out the fireball incinerating the metal, plus X-ray spalling -- the latter a key component of the article and what the Bluegill device was designed to emphasize! Neutrons alone seems to be low balling it. You probably need to rethink this to account for that, as well as check the numbers.
2. other context (including text made invisible by flagging censorship)
article title: 1960s Bluegill Nuclear Test: A Non-Human Craft Fell to Earth
andyjohnson0 comment: I can't seem to find the part where the author provides any evidence that the object they mention is extraterrestrial in origin - rather than being, for example, part of the launch vehicle. Gave up when they introduced the Marilyn Monroe assassination theory.
best comment (mine in reply to the above):
That’s sad for you. What made you give up?
More generally tho: perhaps if you checked your priors safely away before reading the article you’d have an easier time exploring the possibilities?
my later comment (also great):
“extraordinary“, “wobbly“ - assessments, which all depend on priors. Counterpoint to that aphorism is: extraordinary conservatism leads to extraordinary ignorance.
3. Advice to HN:
These sort of articles really should be able to be discussed on HN without people becoming abusively insecure-confident and flagging counterpoints to their priors which they seem to hold with religious fervor. This flagging shuts down discussions and tries to render counterpoints invisible. Be mature, be cool, remain calm and don’t get angry and flag stuff just because it challenges you - and you can discuss the big subjects with big players! :) hahaha
A rocket engine by it's nature is a tough device. Many of them survive orbital entry and that's 30MJ/kg. With the absence of air, only real damaging factor on some device which isn't supposed to function, is neutron flux. Let's suppose the engine was XLR105-5, as used on Atlas-D, the contemporary ICBM. It had a diameter of 3.05m and mass of 460kg.
So we could expect at least some recognisable debris to remain out of a rocket engine that absorbed 460 * 3E7 joules of energy through it's (3.05/2)^2 * PI m2 external projection, or up to 1.9GJ/m2.
A 400kt nuclear device is 1.7E15J, thus (emitting across 4PI steradian of space), this amount of flux is achieved at only 266m distance. So at 266m or so, at least something will remain of the engine, and at 1km, not just the engine will be pretty much intact (that would be damage from entering of the 1st, not upper stage - only damage 1st stage engines get from reentering, is from the ground impact or water damage if falling to the ocean), but even the stage itself will be only partially destroyed.
It's highly unlikely the stage was closer than 1km to the warhead at the moment of detonation.