Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Skydiver's Helmet Cam Captures a Falling Meteor

Posted by samzenpus on from the that's-a-close-one dept.

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."

142 comments

  1. Falling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How you figure?

  2. That's ... by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    One lucky skydiver!!!

    1. Re:That's ... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      One lucky skydiver!!!

      Especially if he's a Bob Shaw fan! ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:That's ... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    3. Re:That's ... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      what do you mean? he's just as lucky as the rest of us who never get hit by a falling meteor.

      Now, if he was hit by the meteor, then he would be special.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:That's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people don't have meteorites falling within a couple of metres of their body. He was very lucky.

    5. Re:That's ... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      well, if you think of it that way, he would be extremely lucky if it did hit him.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  3. Two years? by sTERNKERN · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Two years? by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

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

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    2. Re:Two years? by sTERNKERN · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Two years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.'

    4. Re:Two years? by u38cg · · Score: 0

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

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    5. Re:Two years? by TitusC3v5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
    6. Re:Two years? by heypete · · Score: 1

      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).

    7. Re:Two years? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Two years? by fellip_nectar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Worst. Signature. Ever.
    9. Re:Two years? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    10. Re:Two years? by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    11. Re:Two years? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      So, that was Meow Meow whizzing past him?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    12. Re:Two years? by Paezley · · Score: 1

      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).

    13. Re:Two years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      God job keeping alive the true Slashdot tradition of not reading the article.

  4. Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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".

    1. Re:Hoax? by Goaway · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Hoax? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The astronomers at mpml are also quite doubtful.

    4. Re:Hoax? by dominux · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re: Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    6. Re:Hoax? by grub · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    7. Re:Hoax? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

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

  5. RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock by heypete · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock by Khyber · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:RTA: geologists wanted to find the rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a private meteorite collector. We have the right to collect the meteorites we find, and we do whatever we can to find them first. I don't see why you, government-funded geologists (I'm also an anarchist) should have the right to the meteorites that fall on Earth.

      Sofia Koutsouveli

  6. At a press conference this week... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    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."

  7. Odds in the virtual world. by geekmux · · Score: 0

    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.)

    1. Re:Odds in the virtual world. by Blaskowicz · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:Odds in the virtual world. by Tom · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Odds in the virtual world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    4. Re:Odds in the virtual world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    5. Re:Odds in the virtual world. by cusco · · Score: 1

      One of my co-irkers was complimenting his buddy, saying, "Rami is one in a million!" I piped up saying, "There are 6,999 more of him? Civilization is doomed!"

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    6. Re:Odds in the virtual world. by geekmux · · Score: 1

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

      It was an observation and comparison in chance and odds between seemingly impossible events, nothing more. The FPS example is valid if you've ever played one. From the sounds of it, I doubt it.

      And the underlying tone that I'm some kind of hardcore gamer that can't pull my head out of a gaming console to "revaulate" my life is far from accurate either, as my FPS observations are from casual play. Like most responsible adults, I hardly have time.

  8. Slow speed ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  9. Ummm, probably not by kooky45 · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Ummm, probably not by KreAture · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Ummm, probably not by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Ummm, probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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!

    4. Re:Ummm, probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    5. Re:Ummm, probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rock never matched speed with him.

    6. Re:Ummm, probably not by kosh271 · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Ummm, probably not by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    8. Re:Ummm, probably not by geirlk · · Score: 2

      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?

    9. Re:Ummm, probably not by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

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

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    10. Re:Ummm, probably not by RPI+Geek · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
    11. Re:Ummm, probably not by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      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).

    12. Re:Ummm, probably not by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re:Ummm, probably not by kooky45 · · Score: 1

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

    14. Re:Ummm, probably not by Paezley · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    15. Re:Ummm, probably not by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    16. Re:Ummm, probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    17. Re:Ummm, probably not by Paezley · · Score: 2

      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.

    18. Re:Ummm, probably not by Paezley · · Score: 1

      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.

    19. Re:Ummm, probably not by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Another possible explanation is that the object fell from either the plane or another skydiver (as he was first out of the plane).

      Like he explains, and the video clearly shows, when the rock flew past him both the plane and all of the other divers were below him. At the start of the video you can see the plane basically dive past all of the divers and descend below them. He points out where the other divers are, other than one person who enters his airspace about 4 seconds after the rock flies past. It wasn't on the plane, and it wasn't from another diver. They have had 2 years to think about those possibilities. I understand that being an amateur internet detective is fun, but at least watch the evidence.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    20. Re:Ummm, probably not by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

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

      The aircraft that was obviously below him when the rock flew by?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    21. Re:Ummm, probably not by Paezley · · Score: 2

      http://vimeo.com/29954873 Rocks!

    22. Re:Ummm, probably not by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      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.

      That's a long post, but it fails to address how the rock got to the speed of several hundred km per hour by the time it flew past him.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    23. Re:Ummm, probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Anything packed into the chute falls past the jumper almost immediately following deployment of the canopy.

      For example, a shoe: http://youtube.com/watch?v=hF0xRqy6Nho

      The delay between opening and when the rock shot past the video camera suggests that it came from some place other than the dbag of the wingsuiter.

    24. Re:Ummm, probably not by tibit · · Score: 1

      it fails to address how the rock got to the speed of several hundred km per hour by the time it flew past him

      You can address it yourself. Gravitational acceleration is 9m/s^2. 300 km/h is 83m/s. The rock could have easily been going less than that, say 50m/s. It takes 6 seconds for it to accelerate to that speed from rest. It didn't start at rest.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    25. Re:Ummm, probably not by The+Bad+Astronomer · · Score: 1

      Yes, the apparent speed is the biggest argument against it being something packed in the 'chute, I'd think. If the skydiver were still decelerating hard after the parachute opened, the rock could appear to move rapidly, but even then it appears to come from farther away than the parachute. I'm still looking into this, and will have my own thoughts posted tomorrow on my blog.

      --
      *** Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer http://www.badastronomy.com
    26. Re:Ummm, probably not by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. The skydiver is not at rest either. It is not traveling at the absolute speed of 300km/h, it is traveling 300 km/h faster than the diver. Go ahead and count the number of seconds between when he pops his chute, and when the rock flies by, and tell me if that is enough time for the rock to accelerate to a speed of 300km/h relative to the diver while still being above him.

      What you're suggesting is that the rock would have had to have been launched directly upward at a relatively high velocity, in order for it to have time to come to a stop, then start accelerating downward such that, when it passed the slower diver, it was moving substantially faster than he was. There is not enough time for that to happen.

      It's cool that you're a skydiver, I admire that, but these people have been looking at this for 2 years. The guy in question owns his own wing suit and other gear. The guy in question does not think it came from him. I hope you can respect his experience and acknowledge that your own experience does not necessarily outweigh his. Your'e not the only person with skydiving experience in this situation.

      I acknowledge that, yeah, it's possible for a rock to be launched out of a chute if it was packed with the chute. But that's not the situation that I see in the video.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    27. Re:Ummm, probably not by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Oops, you're not the GP. I didn't check the name, I don't know if you're a skydiver or not.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    28. Re:Ummm, probably not by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Thanks Phil. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the relative speed, it looks fairly difficult to do because it looks like the rock is coming in at an angle (although it's hard to tell without much of a frame of reference).

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    29. Re:Ummm, probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what are you saying - that you got your degree from Slashdot?

    30. Re:Ummm, probably not by The+Bad+Astronomer · · Score: 1

      That analysis was done here: http://norskmeteornettverk.no/... (it's not in English, but google translate does a decent job). He makes a distance estimate based on speed, which itself is based on the assumption it's a falling rock at terminal velocity. But the distance, speed, and time it takes to cross the FOV are related, and if you make a stab at speed you can get distance and vice versa.

      --
      *** Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer http://www.badastronomy.com
    31. Re:Ummm, probably not by amaurea · · Score: 1

      If this thing is falling from the parachute, that would make it a small, nearby, slow object rather than a larger, faster object further away. Assuming a 7 m tall parachute (including lines, ) + 1 m more of skydiver legs below that, we find that the rock traveled from around the top of the parachute to definitely below the skydiver in 15 frames of video, which gives us a velocity of about 13 m/s relative to the skydiver. Assuming that the parachute has slowed the skydiver down to a landing velocity of 7 m/s, this brings it to a total velocity of 20 m/s.

      The terminal velocity of a rock depends on its size. I couldn't find numbers for rocks, but for hailstones (which should fall more slowly due to their lower density (2.5 times lower density gives sqrt(2.5) = 1.6 times lower terminal speed)), I find that one 8 cm in diameter falls at 48 m/s (so we would expect 75 m/s for rock). In general we have rho r^3 = Ar^2v^2 giving v proportional to sqrt(r). So to get a terminal velocity of 20 m/s we need a 0.6 cm diameter pebble.

      This doesn't mean that the object necessarily is a nearby small object, but it is plasuible so far.

      Another thing that points in the direction of a small object is the way it suddenly appears in the front-facing camera's field of view, quite far from the edge (indicating a very large angular velocity), but then only moves a few pixels the next frame. This camera's field of view seems to be about 60 degrees or so, which would give the object an angular velocity of more than 20 degrees per frame, or 500 degrees per second for the first frame when it appears in the forwards view. For 13 m/s relative to the skydiver, this would put the object at a distance of less than 1.5 m, which is consistent. The object's size is about 3 pixels in diameter at this point (out of a image width of 1280 pixels), which would give it a size of 0.35 cm, which is a bit too small.

      According to the NRK article, the object was moving at 300 km/h, or 80 m/s. That would put it at a distance of 9.5 m (still really close!), and a size of 2.2 cm in diameter. Such an object should have a terminal velocity of 40 m/s, which is about half the 80 m/s we assumed. But the uncertainty of these measurements is big enough that that's probably well inside the margin of error. (To get 80 m/s we want a 10 cm diameter object, which might work if we take into acocount that the object is further away on the first frame when it appears in the forward camera than it would have been on average between that and the previous frame).

      So based on these back-of-the-envelope non-expert calculations, I'd tentatively say that your pebble-in-the-parachute explanation fits the video just as well as the meteorite explanation. But I'd trust the experts who looked at this video more than me.

    32. Re:Ummm, probably not by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      I have a hard time imagining a chute launching a rock that size high enough up to delay it that long, and of course the rock would have had a hard time getting that far forward to catch that weird gust of wind that brought it back toward the camera.
      I remember a bullet that did that and then landed on a guy's stretcher once, so it could happen.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    33. Re:Ummm, probably not by kosh271 · · Score: 1

      My apologies for showing my ignorance. I watched some videos from a few days before the Slashdot story was posted - they were in a different language than English. I did not know how much analysis had been done (or how long they had been considering the evidence). I only stated possibilities that seem to have already been disproved. I'm glad you are here for all of us "internet detectives". I don't know what we would do without you doing your own internet detective work.

    34. Re:Ummm, probably not by KreAture · · Score: 1

      But an object half the size of the "parachute" (happy now?) would be noticed.
      And yes, there is size info available.

    35. Re:Ummm, probably not by KreAture · · Score: 1

      Well, we do have size info.
      Minimum focal range is approx 23".
      Further more, the sensor of a hero 3 has appreox 170 degrees field of view.
      Based on this we can know that in order to be in focus at all the object has atleast 0.9 mm/pixel size.
      With atleast 12 pixels width that's 10.8mm and at that range/scale the apparant size of it would change dramatically as it passed the fov. It doesn't.

    36. Re:Ummm, probably not by geirlk · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying I've learned to be a pedantic, anal retentive querulant.

  10. No stealing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

  11. Two rocks! by KreAture · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Two rocks! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

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

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Two rocks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Two rocks! by KreAture · · Score: 1

      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."

    4. Re:Two rocks! by FlyveHest · · Score: 2

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

  12. This claim is nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:This claim is nonsense by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

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

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:This claim is nonsense by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:This claim is nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    4. Re:This claim is nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Occam's Razor

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

    5. Re:This claim is nonsense by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      Accelerating?

    6. Re:This claim is nonsense by Mr0bvious · · Score: 1

      Sitting on top of the chute before falling off?

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    7. Re:This claim is nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

  13. WOW... first it was the skydiver... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  14. OT: Obnoxious Noah Movie Ad by hey! · · Score: 0

    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.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:OT: Obnoxious Noah Movie Ad by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    2. Re:OT: Obnoxious Noah Movie Ad by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

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

    3. Re:OT: Obnoxious Noah Movie Ad by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was referring to an ad served on Comedy Central, but I hold the client liable for the offense.

      Fuck you, Sears.

      OP was assaulted @ TFA, I was not, at this time, but its the sort of thing that would make me skip a movie I had planned to see in a theatre.
      I'm a petty, vindictive asshole; But really, do those guys think they're selling better?

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  15. Ice from his plane or another plane ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  16. Could the bird have dropped the word? by DrPBacon · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    Spent All My Mod Points
    1. Re:Could the bird have dropped the word? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Are you saying it was a swallow carrying a coconut?

    2. Re:Could the bird have dropped the word? by DrPBacon · · Score: 1

      More like a raven carrying an igneous murder weapon.

      --
      Spent All My Mod Points
  17. Now I understand... by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...why skydivers wear an helmet.

  18. More technical information also provided by SmilingBoy · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

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

    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!

    1. Re:More technical information also provided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

    2. Re:More technical information also provided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    3. Re:More technical information also provided by SmilingBoy · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:More technical information also provided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

    5. Re:More technical information also provided by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      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...

    6. Re:More technical information also provided by tibit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're writing technical reports on shit that someone has packed into a chute. Oh, how easy it is for experts in field A to assume they have been born with knowledge from field B. Namely, those meteor experts who just don't get what every skydiver learns after a while: shit sometimes get packed into the chute. This whole thing is just so full of fail I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    7. Re:More technical information also provided by tibit · · Score: 1

      IOW: There's no reason for it not to be 100% legit, except it's not a meteorite, it's a random rock from the place where the chute was previously packed. Possibly even not most recently packed.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  19. Grenade Headshot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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...

    1. Re:Grenade Headshot by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

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

  20. Speed matching rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  21. Sperm whale and a bowl of petunias by jfdavis668 · · Score: 0

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

  22. Why it is not white-hot? by Max_W · · Score: 1

    Should not it be glowing from atmosphere resistance?

    1. Re:Why it is not white-hot? by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Why it is not white-hot? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  23. African or European? by erlegreer · · Score: 1

    African or European?

  24. Depends on the scale by erlegreer · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Depends on the scale by Tom · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:Depends on the scale by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      And thus immediately after he explained how people are bad at comprehending the confluence of small probabilities with large numbers, you demonstrate the principle.

      Yes, it might be only a 5% chance that _anyone_ finds that gold coin, not 5% chance per person. The issue is that it's not just one gold coin, there are a bunch of gold coins, each of which only has a 5% chance being found. The odds of someone finding a particular coin are small, but the odds of no one finding any of the coins is even smaller.

      The odds of a particular skydiver having a close encounter with a particular meteor are astronomical. However many meteors surive atmospheric entry each day and many people go skydiving each day. The odds that every skydiver that day will be far away from every meteor that day is _much_ lower. Still not common, but much lower. And the odds that it doesn't happen to any skydiver on any day in the year is another couple magnitudes lower.

      Then on top of that, what are the odds that a balloonist has a close encounter with a meteor? Or a hang glider?

      Instead of a skydiver encountering a meteor, it could have been someone falling out of a plane without a parachute or having their parachute fail but surviving the fall anyways. (It's happened a couple times in history.) Or a meteorite hitting the ground somewhere famous in front of a bunch of tourists. Or an practically infinite number of other very unlikely things that don't involve either rocks or people falling out of the sky. If either of those stories had happened instead we'd still be saying "wow, what were the odds of that happening?"

      If you can think of something that has exactly a trillion to one odds of happening to anyone in their lifetime, the odds of it happening to anyone on the planet aren't good. If you come up with a 1000 different things with those odds that are entirely unrelated to each other, then the odds that at least one of them will happen to someone on the planet are pretty high.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    3. Re:Depends on the scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You always try to change the topic and fail? You did here and apk rolled you http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... you got pumped and dumped chump, trying to change the topic (requestpolicy and its inferiority to hosts files) and had to eat your words against apk.

    4. Re:Depends on the scale by Tom · · Score: 1

      I have a troll. :-)

      Get a life, loser. Also, take reading comprehension 101.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:Depends on the scale by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I have a troll. :-)

      Low UIDs get all the luck

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    6. Re:Depends on the scale by Tom · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you can piss him off just the same. He'll probably find something else to rage about, no problem.

      But the way I tick it's made me to actually put a few minutes into researching the troll phenomenon and it's... well, here's my results: http://slashdot.org/journal/71...

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  25. Tin foil hat on by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  26. Re:Odds in the virtual world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once upon a time in WWII Online I took out an M1937 anti-tank gun and was moving it into position when an enemy plane spotted me. I was in the middle of a field, so there was no hiding and there's no moving fast with that sucker. The enemy was circling around to make a strafing run at me, so I lined up on him, deployed the gun's tails, and waited for him to get into range. One round hit right on his spinner and he went down behind me in a pile of flames and wreckage.

    Yeah, it's a video game and it's highly improbable rather than impossible, but it still happens.

  27. Too bad you had to "eat your words" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You libelous technically challenged little noob http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    1. Re:Too bad you had to "eat your words" by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I should have paid more attention. You're the HOSTS guy. Damn man, you're a star.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    2. Re:Too bad you had to "eat your words" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny Tom stfu disappearing after that post (not). Tom's busy "eating his words". Tom's polite (now that apk humbled him http://slashdot.org/comments.p... after that libel of Tom's for Tom's numerous mistakes). Tom doesn't talk with his mouth full (of his own words he had to eat).

    3. Re:Too bad you had to "eat your words" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apk did get the better of Open SORES goof Tom bigtime http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but on being a star? If you say so. It's no big accomplishment to show these Open SORES goofs that steal one another's code and pass it off as their own are nothing more than dunces.

  28. Tom = multiple /. sockpuppet acct using scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And libeler: How'd "eating your words" taste? See here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... were they flavorful (lol) seasoned with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat" + YOUR FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH you bigmouth libelous Open SORES bullshitter?

    As to the rest of my subject, let's let TOM speak shall we:

    "I'm having great conversations on this site with one of my alias accounts" - by Tom (822) on Monday April 07, 2014 @02:29PM (#46686259) Homepage

    FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  29. You're a sockpuppet using loser Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And libeler: How'd "eating your words" taste? See here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... were they flavorful (lol) seasoned with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat" + YOUR FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH you bigmouth libelous Open SORES bullshitter?

    As to the rest of my subject, let's let TOM speak shall we:

    "I'm having great conversations on this site with one of my alias accounts" - by Tom (822) on Monday April 07, 2014 @02:29PM (#46686259) Homepage

    FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  30. Tom = multiple /. sockpuppet using troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That got "caught in the act", red-handed: Let's let TOM speak shall we:

    "I'm having great conversations on this site with one of my alias accounts" - by Tom (822) on Monday April 07, 2014 @02:29PM (#46686259) Homepage

    FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    APK

    P.S.=> You're a serious piece of shit, "Tom"... apk