ET Disclosure 1913: Case Proven
Which would you prefer: disclosure, about the extraterrestrial presence on Planet Earth, by our own governments; or disclosure from extraterrestrials themselves?
The thing is, whilst our governments are: at the moment, steadfastly refusing to disclose any evidence they have regarding extraterrestrials; the extraterrestrials themselves have already presented us with awe inspiring proof of their presence in our Solar System and skies.
And this evidence was shown to us – in a most spectacular fashion – on the night of the 9 February, 1913.
Now the sketch above (from PDF page 35): drawn by a witness to the Great Canadian Meteor Procession of 1913, mightn't look all that spectacular – it is, after all, only composed of pencil lines drawn on paper (I've inverted the colour scheme to make the image stand out) – but if you compare it to the image below: of an event that occurred a century later in February 2013, you will get a much better understanding of what was seen in the skies over Canada, and across the world, on that eventful night.
(I've flipped this image: of the Chelyabinsk event, horizontally to make the comparison easier.)
(NB The pencil drawing above: along with most of the evidential material that I will be presenting here, is sourced from a paper: 'An Extraordinary Meteoric Display', published by Canadian astronomer Clarence A. Chant in The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada Vol. VII. May-June, 1913. No3.) 'So what has all this stuff about meteors got to do with ET?' - is the question that you are probably asking right now. Please read the following extract from Clarence A. Chant's paper very carefully. " A huge meteor appeared travelling from the south-east, which, as it approached, was seen to be in two parts and looked like two bars of flaming material, one following the other. They were throwing out a constant stream of sparks and after they had passed they shot out balls of fire straight ahead that traveled more rapidly than the main bodies. They seemed to pass over slowly and were in sight about five minutes. Immediately after their disappearance in the south-east a ball of clear fire, that looked like a big star, passed across the sky in their wake. This ball did not have a tail or show sparks of any kind..."We now need to break this extract down and examine what it is implying it more closely. "...looked like two bars of flaming material, one following the other." Think about this. A 'bar shape' would imply rectangularity – whether the bar in question was cylindrical or rectangular in cross-section - when seen from the side we: and the witness here, would be seeing a rectangle. Now – as we all know – meteors are supposed to be haphazardly formed, irregularly shaped rocks that plunge into the Earth's atmosphere. So what mechanism could account for this rectangular (or, perhaps, classic cigar-shaped) geometry?Then there's this: " ...they shot out balls of fire straight ahead that traveled more rapidly than the main bodies...". Meteors enter our atmosphere travelling at tremendous speed (36,000 mph or faster) and then decelerate as friction caused by their passage through the air rapidly bleeds away their kinetic energy. So what we are being told here should be impossible. When meteors break up in the atmosphere some of the debris formed could decelerate faster than other pieces – but to accelerate away from the bodies that generated them would mean that there must be some form of energy input/output: completely seperate from the rapidly decaying kinetic energy already possessed by those bodies – at play here. And it doesn't end there. Consider this: "They seemed to pass over slowly and were in sight about five minutes." Now compare what this witness is saying with this known fact regarding the speed at which meteors travel across the sky: the slowest ever speed – recorded with radar technology – for a meteor's passage was ten miles per second. Now an object traveling at that speed for five minutes would cover a distance of 3,000 miles. This means that an observer on the ground would need to be able to see 1,500 miles in either direction in order to witness the entire event. And this is – of course – impossible due the curvature of the Earth. Therefore these objects couldn't have been travelling at anything like typical meteoric velocities. Finally, we have the third object reported by this witness. "...a ball of clear fire, that looked like a big star, passed across the sky... This ball did not have a tail or show sparks of any kind..." Here, yet again, we are looking at an object of dubious provenance: given it's un-meteor-like appearance. Consider, the friction generated by a meteor's passage through the atmosphere causes it's surface to both heat up to high temperatures, and also to abrade, so that a glowing tail: composed of hot meteoric material, forms in it's wake. This object didn't have a tail of any description. Why? So add all of the above together and what do you get? I'll tell you one thing that you most definitely don't get - that is a stream of meteors. These objects can only, really be best described in only one way: as Unidentified Flying Objects. And, as you will see, what occurred on the night of 9 February, 1913 was a UFO event of staggering proportions – the magnitude of which hasn't ever been seen before or witnessed since. Which is not to say that it couldn't ever happen again. (Given the ongoing proliferation of sightings of slow moving, silent fireballs in our skies - I'm pretty sure that it will.) A little background information would be useful at this point. Clarence Augustus Chant: who is generally regarded to be the 'father of Canadian astronomy', did not – unfortunately – witness the great procession himself. But after receiving phone calls, and reading reports of the phenomenon in the press, he realized that something highly unusual had occurred that needed to be investigated. So he wrote to newspapers across Canada asking them to appeal: on his behalf, for eye-witness accounts. Most of what you will be reading here consists of the written accounts from those that responded. ( NB. A PDF version of Chant's paper is available for download on NASA's Astrophysics Data System website. Here's the link: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913JRASC...7..145C I would urge you to download this document now – being able to refer to it as you read this article will enable you to appreciate the true nature of this unparalleled event: an event that – should it be repeated – will have an almost unimaginable impact on our future and the way in which we perceive our true place within the cosmos. Also, please note: for reference purposes, all page numbers given in this article are PDF page numbers; you will need to have Adobe's page thumbnails pane open to locate the extracts used here.) Now let's continue our exploration of this unprecedented event. This next extract is taken from Chant's overview of the material he'd received from witnesses. It can be found on PDF page 5.
Before we start breaking this extract down, however, we need to understand a little about the man who wrote it. Chant, in his earlier carreer, lectured in physics at the University of Toronto. Here he would have become accustomed to submitting his work to the the rigours of the academic peer review process..So we can, with a degree of certainty, safely surmise that he was a soberly scholastic character: not easily given over to sensationalism or graphic overstatement. Yet, despite this scholastic sobriety, what he has written/reported above is truly sensational.
Think about it. Chant is, here, talking about a disparate collection of haphazardly formed rocks from space: each of a unique size, weight and – most importantly – mass (mass is a component of momentum: IE mass x velocity = momentum). Now whilst these lumps of debris might have entered the Earth's atmosphere travelling at the same, initial velocity, once they encountered atmospheric drag/resistance: which would have affected them all to a different degree, this would have changed dramatically. Those with less mass would have begun to lose forward momentum much more rapidly than their more massive counterparts, as their kinetic energy was absorbed by the molecular gases that constitute the air we breath. And this would have been a runaway process. The more kentic energy given up in this way, the lower these objects would have descended into the increasingly denser atmosphere – causing exponential energy loss. This means that the scenario described by Chant above is a physical impossibility. Meteors could not have maintained any kind of formation in the way described by Chant above. In the real world meteors with less mass would have quickly fallen out of the formation and headed Earthwards.
Yet multiple witnesses described these objects maintaining formation over a distance of seven thousand miles. Now I would argue that I have already proven that we are not looking at inanimate lumps of rock here. So, we have to ask, how was this formation maintained? Are we looking at coordination – even communication – between these objects?
Before we attempt to answer that question, let's take a look at - and examine - a few more witness statements.
"About 9 o'clock or a little after as I was on way home from church I saw a large meteor fall to earth, leaving a trail of fire as long as Halley's Comet behind it. Then, turning towards the north, I saw a large black cloud, out of which shooting stars were coming, as it seemed, about 50, each having a line of fire in its path, and disappearing in a large black cloud in the south. After this there began a low rumbling sound like thunder."
From PDF page 25.
This is the only account – to be found in Chant's paper – that describes a meteor falling to Earth. We need to bear in mind here that this witness doesn't report any kind of detonation associated with the event: which would have indicated an impact, only a " low rumbling sound like thunder" afterwards. (I'll be dealing with the sounds associated with the passage of the 'meteor stream' later.)
The main point of interest here is the fact that this witness reports seeing meteors emerging from one cloud and then disappearing into another. This tells us that the stream flew through the atmosphere – not out in space above it.
Moreover, establishing the exact altitude at which these objects flew – from reports which differed considerably - proved to be something of a problem for Chant. To resolve this problem he first of all tries to establish a line on the map, over which the meteor stream passed directly: which he termed 'the meteor trace'. Next he tries to establish the distance between 'the meteor trace' and the various points on the map from which observations were made. Finally he uses the reported angle: given in degrees above the horizon, the 'meteor trace' used as a baseline, and the points from which observations were made to perform a triangulation calculation to arrive at the correct altitude.
In fact, Chant: with this next extract, offers up an intimation that he – himself – suspected that the height of the stream above the ground varied over much of its course.
From PDF page 8.
"...I saw the first meteor at 9.05 it was a little west of north-west from here and travelling nearly towards me. I took it for an aeroplane with both headlights lit, and as it came nearer the sparks falling behind it made it appear more like one...It was very low...just above the hills."
From PDF page 28.
Then there's this:
From PDF page 42.
"...which was still going up...". There you have it. Proof that these objects didn't just fly through the atmosphere – they actually maneuvered within it.
So let us now take a look at Chant's 'meteor trace'. Here's the map - complete with the meteor trace - published by Chant himself:
From PDF page 20
As you can clearly see, the trace (arrowed) shown here describes a straight line with no curves, kinks or angles. Now, in my estimation, a stream of meteors flying a straight course through the sky: at the low speeds described by many witnesses (*see Table One) should, in fact, create a westward curving trace on the ground beneath: because Planet Earth rotates from West to East. And, further to this, it actually rotates at different speeds at different latitudes.
Check out this excellent info-graphic.
So how fast were these meteors moving? Let's take a look at what some of the witnesses had to say.
Here's another map (to which I've added a few features). I will be referring back to this map as we proceed.
(Map courtesy of Sky & Telescope)
This image/map illustrates a modern version (which includes information from more recent research) of Chant's 'meteor trace': his calculated/imagined straight line on the map (the line shown here follows the curvature of the planet). The problem with this straight line is purely, and simply the fact that it is straight. Think about this. For this trace to describe a straight line it has to intersect each successive line of latitude at intersection points that are all on the move: all travelling from West to East at different speeds. So how was this achieved? As I see it, there are two distinct possibilities.
- The 'meteor stream' either accelerated – by just the right amount – to meet the eastwards moving latitudinal intersection points at the precise juncture that would keep the line straight as it approached the equator; then the stream decelerated: with equal precision, as it crossed the equator and traveled down into the lower latitudes.
- Or – throughout it's flight – the stream: apart from its overall northwest to southeast motion, compensated for the Earth's rotation by also moving, laterally, eastwards to cancel out the westward drift.
Either way – what we would be looking at here are a stream of objects that didn't just follow a flight path: but rather the coordinated trajectory of a stream of objects following a flight plan. Now all of this does, of course, depend on the fact that the stream moved slowly across the heavens in the manner described by most witnesses. Most, that is, but by no means all. Because Chant's paper does include a few statements that don't agree with this'slow moving' scenario.In an attempt to try and resolve this issue I began looking at the times: given by witnesses, at which the meteor stream passed specific locations (IE those circled on the map above). But, as you are about to find out, this exercise only served to raise more questions and deepen the mystery even further. Please check out Table Two. It makes for very interesting – if baffling – reading. With this table I've converted the relevant times supplied by witnesses to Greenwich Mean Time so that direct comparisons can be made.
Click image to see in (enlarged) PDF format.
What then, are we to make of the timing anomalies that have been revealed by the simple process of converting all times given to their Greenwich Mean Time equivalents? Believe me, there is a simple explanation for this.
But first we need to explore the sighting witnessed by Mr A. Y. Porter: from the bridge of the SS Bellucia whilst at sea in the Atlantic, a little further. The following extract is in Mr Porter's own words: its taken from a letter he wrote to W. F. Denning (Denning was regarded at the time - by Chant and his contemporaries – to be the foremost expert on all things meteoric); the letter was dated April 10, 1915.
"....I was on the bridge from 8 to 12 pm. At 10.30 pm I saw the sky lighted up with meteoric fire, starting at north and and going by way of east to south-east. Apparently the height was about 25o above the horizon, but not more than 10-12 miles east of the position of the steamer at that time, continuing until 11.05 pm. It must have been travelling through the earth's atmosphere at the rate of more than 500 miles an hour and fragments were falling off as it passed along. It looked like red and white liquid fire... "
(Before continuing you now need to refer – directly - to Chant's paper. Please read at least some of the witness statements whilst paying careful attention to how they describe the time it took for the meteor stream to cross the sky.)
Once you have a good idea about the average length of time taken for the meteor stream to pass overhead according to the witness satements in Chant's paper: some three to six minutes (approximately), you will appreciate the import of the highlighted text in Mr Porter's statement above. Mr Porter is clearly telling us that his stream of 'red and white liquid fire' (at no point does he use the word 'meteor' – did he even see any individual meteors?) was in view for a full 35 minutes.
This calls into question whether or not Porter even witnessed the same event as that described by Chant. Further to this, if you examine the timing of the event at both Bermuda and Mortlach (and all points in between) in the table above (Table Two) you will begin to have serious doubts as to whether any two statements: from any two witnesses, are actually refering to a single, protracted event. Get the picture? Chant got it wrong. We are not looking at a single 'meteor stream' here. We are looking at multiple streams – of multiple incandescent objects – all airborn: all over the world. We are looking at a coordinated series of aerial events that was staged entirely for our benefit.
For some this was a magical experience:
"...I suddenly found that the whole heavens, from the zenith to the horizon, was full of meteors...They travelled no faster than a crow flies. There was absolute silence..."
From PDF page 39.
So much for the visuals, let's now examine the audio. As you will understand from the last extract, some witnesses: pointedly, remarked on the total lack of any sound that they could ascribe to the meteor stream's passage. Most, however, reported a low rumbling: that they described in various ways, that only reached their ears after the stream had passed beyond the horizon. All of this is highly unusual – given the way that sound waves propagate through the atmosphere. Why - even the wind: which is just moving air, if it is strong enough, makes a noise. So what kind of sound does a fast moving object: that displaces a large volume of air as it goes, create? Well, if that object is travelling faster then the speed of sound then the noise created is horrendous.
The picture below illustrates how the hard-hitting, classic double THUD THUD of a sonic boom is generated.
This shows the shock waves generated by a bullet. It works in exactly the same way for a super-sonic aircraft or meteor/incoming asteroid. You hear the individual booms as the waves pass over you (and scare you half to death). If the object is travelling fast enough the booms will occur too close together to be made out individually: you will hear just one, heart-stoppingly loud boom.
Why then, didn't Chant's contributors include any reasonably accurate description of this phenomenon in their accounts? All real meteors are, by their very nature, supersonic. The only time they cease to be so is when they either burn up or hit the ground. Yet nowhere can anything like this be read in this paper. Were the laws of physics/acoustics different back in 1913? Or were these objects travelling slower than the speed of sound (which would mean – yet again – that they couldn't have been meteors)?
The amount/volume of air displacement does, of course, depend upon the size of the object/objects doing the displacing. Chant discusses this aspect: specifically, the size of the meteors witnessed over Canada, on page 18 of the PDF. On the issue of size he concludes with this:
"...I am inclined to think the largest bodies to have been at least 100 feet in diameter."
From PDF page 19.
Now when it comes to high-speed meteoric objects, a diameter of 100 feet isn't small: it's scary. Such an object travelling at , say, 40,000 miles per hour while close to the ground ( or low over the hills – as described by one of Chant's contributors) wouldn't just create a noise loud enough to implode your eardrums: it would also generate a shock wave powerful enough to flatten buildings. Such objects are killers. In some cases; planet killers.
Luckily for us, however, the 'meteors' that appeared over Canada in 1913 didn't: as I have consistently shown here, behave in a typically 'meteor-like' fashion. They didn't do the things that real meteors typically do. They didn't – for instance – do this:
Tunguska - 1908
The devastation that you see here: which extended over 800 square miles, was caused by a space-rock exploding with, it is thought, the force of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs, over a Siberian pine forest in 1908. (NB. Planetary scientists now believe that the object in question here was no bigger then 30 meters in diameter: IE a little under Chant's estimation of 100 feet for the larger bodies in the meteor stream.) This air burst detonation was triggered by the rapid (very rapid) deceleration induced by atmospheric drag: nothing more. Just simple physics – a simple set of circumstances well understood by science. So the big question here has to be: why didn't any of the objects in the meteor stream suffer the same fate? They were all exposed to exactly the same set of circumstances. Why the different outcome?
Real meteors do not, either, always explode in the atmosphere. Some survive the scorching friction of their descent to make it all the way through to impact. But then, if this had happened back 1913, we'd know about it. We'd have all learned: during history lessons at school, of how, perhaps, Toronto had been reduced to smouldering ruins by a fireball from space. Or how the steamships SS Bellucia and SS Newlands had been overwhelmed by a tidal wave that went on to inundate and destroy South American coastal cities.
Real meteors can do this. Real meteors can, in fact, do much worse. There are lumps of rock out there: looping through space in unstable near-earth orbits, that are a lot bigger than the rock that blew up over Tunguska; or anything seen over Canada in 1913. But then the latter weren't real meteors were they. They were something entirely different. Technology from other worlds perhaps. Maybe we should be attempting to contact those responsible for the Great Event. Who knows? Perhaps they would be willing to help us out – should a real meteor: with planet killer characteristics, ever come our way.
So now my friends it's time to take the plunge, and ask ourselves: what was the purpose of this huge, celestial firework display? What were these signs in the sky trying to tell us?
I know this. It's really quite simple. All they are saying is this: 'We are here'. They've said it once, and they'll say it again. The second time around, however, things will pan out a little differently. Because the next time it happens thousands will record the event with their cell phones and digital cameras. The evidence: that extraterrestrials are disclosing their presence on Planet Earth, will then become undeniable.
My friends, the main event will be foreshadowed by the appearance other aerial phenomena (read Chant's paper) so you will get a warning – be ready.
So keep watching the skies, and keep that camera handy, just in case.
Many thanks for reading.
Peace, Love & Respect
peter dunn
.jpg)
%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(1).jpg)
_A2.jpg)
This day in UFO history: Most Famous UFO Story In Phoenix Remains A Mystery
