I don't think it was intercepted, but I am not convinced by the argument that it was technically impossible.
Harry On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Please apply some common sense. The object was too small to detect and was > totally unexpected. Even if it was detected with enough time to launch a > missile, why do this? > > Ed > On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I believe he's referring to the appearance of a glowing object >>> approaching >>> from _behind_ the main mass that correlates in time and direction to the >>> ejection of fragments with its disappearance into the main mass. Yes, >>> we're >>> talking delta-velocities that are outside of plausible explanation by >>> ballistic missiles or any other known propulsion technology. Ignoring >>> the >>> out-going fragments, the most plausible explanation I can come up with >>> for >>> this approach-from-behind object is modification of the source footage. >>> An >>> optical artifact doesn't cut it due to the time correlation with the >>> expulsion of fragments unless someone can come up with a optical artifact >>> that would also explain those fragments. >> >> >> >> According to this wikipedia entry the russian's posses a missle that >> could have conceivably intercepted the meteor. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M >> The first stage has three rocket motors developed by the Soyuz Federal >> Center for Dual-Use Technologies. This gives the missile a much higher >> acceleration than other ICBM types. It enables the missile to >> accelerate to the speed of 7,320 m/s and to travel a flatter >> trajectory to distances of up to 10,000 km >> >> harry >> >
