meteorites

Hello mariom

Because you called them meteorites, that means you have inspected the objects which fell, and ascertained they were objects from space.

1. How big was each one?
2. What size were each of the holes through the ice?

The answers to the above would assist with a proper reply.

Meanwhile, think about it: A metal bullet travelling at 800 miles per hour, (above the speed of sound), hits water, and because the water has surface tension, and a time lag before deformation (parting to allow the bullet entry) the metal bullet becomes very hot for a short moment, and distorts the metal from the shock wave caused by the momentary impact of the stationary water.

Note that 72 kilometers per second is near the upper limit of meteorite speed, and at that speed even one the size of a golf ball will have immense kinetic energy, which is dissipated as the meteorite hurtles through the air, hits water, ice or anything in its path.

It is entirely possible that the objects which fell, may have been space junk from a discarded rocket, satellite or similar.

Equally, it is possible that the objects which fell, may have been the frozen contents of a malfunctioning toilet in a high-flying aircraft - Such large icicles have fallen at high speed.

The problem of frozen toilet contents being lost from aircraft, is far more common than most folks realise, and the "rain" of thawed and falling toilet debris has been implicated in many diseases being transferred quickly from one place to another, thousands of miles apart.

Advise further, with thank you.

Kind Regards....

Thanks for your precisions Sparkstation,

As a matter of fact we often see big aircrafts flying around here, but I figured airports

being close ( not more than 100 miles ), rejects wouldn't have time to freeze hard enough to pass through 2 feet of ice... and no associated color observed on site .

Besides, water in the lake is clear enough for visual i.d. and did not see anything that could come from human mechanical engeneering.

Answers :

Haven't found them yet, so I don't know the size of the objects but I assume by the holes being about 6 " diameter all the way trhough more than 2 feet of ice ,the thing was solid and hot.

Any other idea ?

Best regards...

If they are iron nickel meteorites then you might be able to put a magent on the end of a fishing pole and drag the magnet across the bottom of the pond until you get a "bite." But it could be just some type of aircraft junk too. Interesting to know what you have there. Keep us posted.

Aren't these called "Boeing Bombs".

They were featured on a recent movie "Joe Dirt". Joe saw one land which was about 1/2 metre in Diameter. He too thought it was a meteor.

Yea and he didn't seem to mind eating off the surface of it.

From the look of that burger he was eating it probably didn't make a difference to the taste.

Mmmmmmmm frozen blue chunky slushy mmmmmmmmm

The terminal velocity of metals meteorites is higher than stony because they are denser and shed less in transit. In any event, it would have hit at less than the speed of sound as it will have shed most of it's velocity through friction, possibly 200-300 MPH.

Metal ones stay together better and heat uniformly and ablate a bit less.

stony ones are brittle and more likely to shatter and also get hotter on the outside and thus fragment more readily as the heat flow cause shear planes in the stone. metals resist this.

Metal one will not be magnetic as they will have heated above the curei point and randomized their domains and only get a small localized field as they cool when stable down through the curie point.

So not easy to find that way. They might be findable visually with 4" pipe with a window on the end as you row a boat around. Scuba would also help

Considering the size, they are probably metallic

I should have said 'have any residual field', which would make a magnetic field detector find them easily.

As you say, magnet on a string will work, but what if it pulls back?

I am having a hard time understanding the question. It sounds like you are describing the following. Is this correct?

I think meteorites traveling through the atmosphere can't go thousands of miles per second. Thousands of feet per second, sure. Thousands of miles per hour... maybe.

If you actually find the 2 objects and they turn out to be metorites then depending upon their space origin, may be quite valuable.

Good luck fishing with a large magnet and or metal detector.

I think you need to devote some time to finding these two objects.

Was the ellipse of splash in the presumed direction of travel seems to be your question. Probably.

If so, what direction were the objects apparently traveling based on your observation of the ellipses? Might help with identification (guesses).

As is the case with some previous posters, I'm having difficulty picturing the 'splashes', which I gather were some distance from the 'holes'. (To me, the term 'splash' implies liquid)... Were the 35 and 6 feet distances from the holes, or size of the splashes. Any Photos? If not, a sketch would be very helpful.

If they were indeed meteorites, and your description of the holes does seem to imply very high velocity objects, then you should have heard one or more sonic booms, if you were within a few miles when it happened. Did you?

As at least one other poster implied, meteorite velocities are normally in the 30-70km/sec (20-45mi/sec) range as they approach earth, slower by the time they have passed through the atmosphere. That's around two orders of magnitude slower than 'thousands of miles a second'.

You may find interesting this Paper:http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/meteor.htm

Dick

there can also be a focussing effect from the incident shock wave hitting the bottom and being reflected to a broad focus. I expect a pond to be a sort of parabola due to accumulations at the angle of repose plus wave action. Not a very precise one, but it may have one or more areas where some higher than usual intensity is ficussed.

??

If the intensity is "ficussed", does that mean it had a lot of little tiny seeds (ficus)???

Seriously, your idea of a more or less parabolic shock area makes sense.

One part of the article I referred to was talking about meteorite hits to solid rock, but it talked about liquid ejecta that had a velocity several times that of the original object!

I would also be very interested in the shape of the holes in the ice. I would expect the holes to have a shape similar to a bullet hole through glass (small at entry, much larger at the other side), but it is conceivable that the velocity was so high that the object could have passed through the ice before the shock wave could expand much. And of course ice that thick does have some self-healing properties (the shock wave would produce cracks, but also heat, which would temporarily melt some of the ice and then refreeze.

well, I would expect a subsonic meteorite, ice>water>steam, and a punchthrough hole.

Then if there is enough energy and badly focussed reflected wave might make another hole.

Plus there is another effect. no matter what happens a hot rock will rest on the bottom offset from the impact hole by some feet. It will then heat water which will rise and melt a hole directly above it. This melt hole may well be round, while the entry hole may not??

I think your theory for the second hole seems plausible to me. What happened to the heat energy of the object that caused the first hole? Did the object cool to exactly the water temperature as it fell through the last of the ice? Or did it contain enough heat to boil the water causing huge amounts of boiling water and steam to blow out the first hole and melt another hole and then have a second release vent with a smaller "debris" field?

It just occurred to me that the impressions in the snow (to the best of my ability to visualize them based on the sketchy description) could have been caused by the probably ellipsoidal region of high pressure in front of and to the sides of the projectiles. In other words, the snow may have been blown aside just before impact. And yes, it seems plausible that the second object, if it were close behind the first one, could have been falling into a region of more rarefied air due to the effect of the first object, so its ellipsoid might not have as much pressure as the first one.

Total speculation. (Jeez. Imagine the force required to punch through 2ft of ice!)

I think OP has a vivid imagination, and I also think something terrestrial made the holes and subsequent water "splashes".

OP claims that two 6" diameter through holes were made in 2 feet of ice on the lake, and states that he or she observed what he/she interpreted as splashes of water on 18" of snow, which covered the ice. OP further states that the apparent splashes were both in the same direction, resulting from the meteorites striking the ice at an angle. No estimations of the width of the splashes is available.

OP does not state the angular orientation of the holes, so we can assume they may have been perpendicular to the surface of the ice. OP assumes whatever objects made the holes were solid and hot. I'm betting that a cold object made the holes.

Now I haven't seen the effects of a tiny meteorite striking ice, but I'm thinking that a slug from my .270, fired into ice, would leave a funnel-shaped crater, rather than a hole of equal diameter from top to bottom. The greater energy of the projectile upon first impact would displace more ice than it would as it slowed down. But, quite possibly an object smaller than my rifle slug, traveling at a much higher velocity, would blow out a hole in ice in the shape of an inverted funnel.

More than likely, the holes were made with one of these...

http://www.strikemaster.com/mora_hand.html

The holes were made by a fisherman, and due to heaving of the ice, water was forced out of the holes, and ended up flowing in the same direction, again due to the heaving. The "splashes" were created by water melting the snow from the bottom up.

(ALTERNATE THEORY... the fisherman kept the fish he caught in a bucket of water to keep them alive, while he fished. As he caught fish at the first hole, some of the water would run over the sides of the bucket each time he added a fish. He then moved to the second hole, catching more fish, until he had enough to fill the bucket. Since he caught most of the fish at the first hole, most of the water was displaced there, so the largest "splash" was produced.)

OP did not see any footprints in the snow, 'cause it snowed and the ice heaved after the fisherman left, cold but happy, wearily lugging his bucket full of fish.

I was thinking of the same thing as I read this.

A 6" dia hole is usually about the size of an ice fishing hole. Some guys drill larger holes hoping to catch larger fish but larger fish are usually smarter than little fish and don't get hooked very often. Or maybe there are just more small fish. But I've never heard anyone say they couldn't get their catch thru the hole because the hole was to small. And we fishermen do have a tendency to stretch the truth now & then.

Well, that got a GA vote from me for imaginative storytelling... Who knows? Wonder what kind of fish are in that lake?

Well, that's swell, but OP specifically said (albeit in his broken English) that "Evidently, they came from an angle;" granted, 90 degrees is an angle, but would a person say that if the angle were 90 degrees? Would an ice fisherman bore a hole at any angle other than 90 degrees?

Greetings, rocketsurgeon, (your comment is in italics),

Well, that's swell, but OP specifically said (albeit in his broken English) that "Evidently, they came from an angle;" granted, 90 degrees is an angle, but would a person say that if the angle were 90 degrees? Would an ice fisherman bore a hole at any angle other than 90 degrees?

OP deduced that they (meteorites) came from an angle, based upon his/her observation of the direction of water splashes, only. OP made no comment about the angular orientation of the holes. Seems to me it would be an easy, and critical, observation to make. If the holes had been created by the angular entry of an object, I would expect the holes to similarly angled, thus revealing the direction from which the projectiles came.

And, if the holes were not vertical, then someone would have had to drill at least one additional vertical hole to determine the thickness of the ice, since the angular holes would not reveal the thickness, being longer than vertical ones.

I rather doubt that any ice fisherman would drill any hole other than vertical, unless he was a really short guy with a long auger. :-)

Oh.

So maybe they came in at an angle, were slowed to a stop by 18"-deep snow after burrowing for 35 horizontal feet, and were still so hot they melted a vertical tube straight down through 2 feet of ice. (But that doesn't explain the other one, with only a 6-foot-long footprint.

I'm starting to like the ice fisherman scenario. Except I think it was two ice fishermen. Why would one guy fish in a hole, then go drill another one 27 feet away? Like, the fish over here are better?

I'm starting to like the ice fisherman scenario. Except I think it was two ice fishermen. Why would one guy fish in a hole, then go drill another one 27 feet away? Like, the fish over here are better?

You might be correct on the number... of course it could have been six fisherman, sitting equally spaced around each hole. I've never been able to figure ice fishermen out, either. Why would anyone fish in a hole? Several decades ago, I spent an hour, sitting in an ice fishing shanty, peering into the hole that my line disappeared into. That was enough for me. Different strokes for different folks.

I seriously doubt that the "meteorites" were going "thousands of miles a second". Even 1,000 miles per second is 3,600,000 miles an hour. Could these objects have been parts of a satellite that had decayed?

O.K. guys, one reply for all and I will try to clarify the whole thing...

What I think meteorites entered at an approx. 55°angle coming from ENEast splashing an elliptic 25'+ long x 16+ wide towards SOSsouth for the first object that hit the ice creating what seemed to be a tunnle like ( stuck a piece of wood into and did not notice any funnel shape, or so lightly) hole of 6" through 18" to 24" of ice floating ( not much place for air ) on water 10' deep ; Second hit ( still according to my belief ) created an approx. 6' long and 4' wide splash, still 6" diameter, same coords, same ice w/5-6' of water.

Holes were 35' apart.

63E2X had a great drawing except trajectories should be inversed.

I think RHABE has a pretty good IDEA of what happened...

I guess these details will help, happy to share this event with you all, and appreciating every comment...

More precisions:

Sorry for my broken english Skeeter, left U.S.A 10 years ago and born french Canadian;Maybe that's why I can't figure you state "OP"... do you speak french ? might be easyer to communicate...

Rule out Fishing holes or else, snow was immaculate around holes and across hole lake except for water splashes ( clear water ).

6 fish lived in the lake at the time ( 18" to 22" smallmouth bass and one 27" walleye )

none was apparently hurt by the incident.

Tried fishing with a magnet but no result, guessing objects might have penetrated sand bottom few inches ?

Could not find metal detector working under water in the area, imagine finding magnetic field sensor...

Speed suggested was estimated by space agency employee... misunderstood ? probably.

Three day ago, ice finished melting, water is almost clear, and I took diving lessons 4 months ago, will try hard to find them... because as Laserlover said, could be worth $$$.

Thanks to each and everyone,

Mario M.

Thanks for the added information... OP = Original Poster. Sorry, no French spoken (or written), here.

Alien ice fishermen, not knowing there were only 6 fish in the lake?

By the way... how is it that you know to a fish how many were in the lake? Tiny lake?

Hi mariom,

with my theory the splash will be backwards into the same direction as the meteorite came!

I think the splash was water and molten ice-particles coming out of the icehole.

Be careful not to destroy the bottom structure of your lake: the marks should still be there where the objects did hit the ground! (If penetrated into below).

Maybe first an underwater photo-safari?

Recover any object that is there, but try not to touch too much, contamination is not very liked by scientific investigators. If it is from a stone meteorite it is still more $$$.

I wish you success.

RHABE

If meteorites or another falling object caused these holes. Wouldn't there be stress fractures radiating from around the hole. Especially since it had to go thru 6" of ice at impact.

I still stand by my drilled hole theory. Maybe they were not for fishing but for some sort of monitoring of the lake. The one time I was dumb enough to go ice fishing. The drilled ice waste went back into the hole or dissipated enough that the only evidence that we drilled the hole was the hole itself. As far as drilling a straight hole instead on at an angle. Have you ever tried to drill a straight hole while standing on slippery ice while holding a heavy motorized auger. They almost never go straight down but close enough that you can fish thru them.

Wouldn't necessarily be stress fracturing if the objects were hot enough and moving fast enough. And even if there were, the cracks could refreeze quickly enough to escape detection. Doubt ice fishing is it, because as mario m said, the snow was undisturbed except for the ejecta patterns.

Most interesting - and garnered 1 GA vote! I concur that focusing waves on water is like herding cats - does not yield a pretty pattern. And I too have seen what military munitions (30mm) can do to armor plate (~2.5") - the hole was through-and-through not much bigger than the round, except for some shear-tearing in some of the holes. I likewise hope this does turn out to be some variety of extraterrestrial visitor!

2 ' of ice punctured by an object that is coming with 20km/s will be done in 30 microseconds.

Well...that's true if the object maintains a speed of 20km/s. But wouldn't it decelerate dramatically as it passed through the ice?

Here's another thing that's bothering me: all this erudite talk of what happens to materials being penetrated by projectiles, and the shocks waves with the compression impulse, and the stress cracks, and yadda yadda yadda... does any of this allow for the properties of the materials changing during the event? Wouldn't an object hitting ice at 20km/s create instantaneous pressures that would melt or even vaporize the ice? (Hell, the object itself might be partially vaporized in such a violent collision.) Do all these theoretical dynamics apply if the materials are changing phase as they move along?

OK, whatever you do, whatever you find, PLEASE come back and let us know?!? The suspense will be unbearable...

Dude, you still haven't given us enough information to rule out the ice-fishing theory: how do you know the snow fell before the holes appeared? You STILL haven't told us the approximate angle of the holes -- was it the 55° angle you stated in your second post? (If so, it's not hard to imagine a guy boring a hole into ice at 55°, but I've never tried it, so I don't know.) The fact that no fish were harmed does not rule out fishermen -- I imagine it wouldn't be the first time a fisherman has gone home with zero fish. And if a guy drilled a couple holes at 55°, it's easy to imagine water eventually spewing out of the holes, especially if the ice is floating on the water as you stated. The only problem is, the water would melt the snow in the pattern drawn by "63E2X," but now you're saying the pattern was in the opposite direction.

By the way, the sketch provided by the guy you called "63E2X" is EXACTLY what I envisioned, based on your description, because you said, "...in open water splash should be opposite of the coming angle...but...the splash could be altered by the ice..."

So the whole thing has me fairly confused.

Also, the first time you told this story, you said "Two meteorites fell in one of my lakes, 27 feet apart," and "splashed elleptically about 35 feet south of the hole." Now it's the other way around. It's all very confusing.

Concur - it might help if there were photos. How 'bout it mario m? Any pics of the site???

I found the following information at this site...

http://www.meteoritemarket.com/metid2.htm

Meteors enter the Earth's atmosphere at speeds ranging from 14 kilometers/second (31,000 miles per hour) to 45 kilometers per second (100,000 miles per hour). At first they burn on the surface and perhaps explode from the shock. But as they go farther into the atmosphere they slow down. All but the largest meteors (like the one that formed Meteor Crater) quit burning and fall dark from an altitude of from 5 to 20 km (3.2 to 12.4 miles). That's a long fall. No human can trace the fall of a rock that far. In fact, no human can even see a small rock at that distance. Where meteorites have been observed to fall, there has simply been a whoosh and a thunk.

By the time meteorites hit the earth they are traveling at terminal velocity--that is a velocity at which the resistance of the air will not let them go any faster. They are falling no faster than a rock dropped from an airplane--or the Coke bottle in the first scene "Gods Must Be Crazy." Terminal velocity for a small object is not very high--150 to 300 km/hr (100 to 200 miles per hour more or less) or less. These impacts don't make big craters. You are more likely to see a small indentation in the ground, a small hole, or nothing.

So, the question remains... what type and size of objects, alien or terrestrial, would punch 6" holes in 24" inch thick ice, with an initial impact of 100 to 200 mph?

Hi Skeeter,

I think you are right with air-braking of small meteorites to final falling velocity.

I found some data - unfortunately not related to size or weight - that most meteorites will cease being heated to visible -red hot - temperature at a velocity below 3000km/h at reaching 5km from ground.

As this is certainly valid for a size of 10cm (4") or less, the objects we discuss here had final velocity if coming from space.

But the velocities you quote are likely to be a factor of 3 to 4 too small. 150 to 250km/h are velocities of free falling humans (before activating their parachutes).

Meteorites may be a factor of 8 more dense so a factor 2.8 faster if drag is proportional to square of velocity.

So I have to modify my above stretched out scenario:

An iron meteorite with estimated 600km/h will make it through 2' of ice (if not significantly slowed down) in 1 millisecond.

If braking is significant so that velocity at exit into water is near zero, then total transit time will be twice this or 2 milliseconds: very fast to have a very high pressure in front.

If we estimate the object to be like a 4" (10cm) steel ball, its weight is 4.3Kg, energy is 770KJoules.

To brake this energy to near zero (at a 2' or 60cm path) a force (estimated to be constant) of 1280KN will be existing.

This force will fluidise the ice and blow out a mixture of ice and water backwards. As the diameter was near 6" the pressure would be 720bar. The energy input is not high enough to generate a significant amount of steam.

After (only) penetrating for 1 inch the shock wave from the very first moments will reach the other side of the ice-plate. This shock-wave is compressive as the impact but on reflection at the backside inverted to expansion, and this will break large nearly flat sheets off the ice.

The intensity of this backside spallation will increase with the projectile traveling through the ice sheet as considering the nearly spherical shape of the shock-wave, a more and more shrinking diameter of this spherical shock-wave with higher and higher intensity is reflected at the backside. And this will split off more and more slightly curved plates until the projectile meets this new surface.

Another type of crack is initiated around the projectile: Hertzian cracks, nearly conical, with the axis oriented in the direction of the projectiles path and opening towards the backside. This crack is forming along the maximum shear stress. This crack is prevented by a high compressive stress so it is possible that these cracks do not initiate or grow as the pressure is likely too high.

Is there somebody out among the readers with a .45 gun willing to shoot at an ice-plate of a thickness of 5 to 10 times the caliper?

(The ice-plate should swim on deep water.)

If not this scenario then the "hot ball melting through cold ice" may be true?

Anybody heard about F.Zwickys (astronomer) fabulous imaginations of rocket driven tunnel excavating machines? This was the result of a complete combination of any possible moving machine with any possible drive.

RHABE

"...with a .45 gun willing to shoot at an ice-plate..."

Only several, I'll bet!

"...rocket driven tunnel excavating machines..."

Yeah, fabulous imaginations is about right! Back in the '50s there was a government program called "Atoms for Peace" where they actually considered using nuclear bombs to excavate canals and tunnels. Never mind it might be 10K years before it's usable, lads, have at it!

"...If we estimate the object to be like a 4" (10cm) steel ball..."

So the hole will naturally be larger by quite a bit than the projectile, but what if the (meteorite) is considerably smaller than 4" (10cm) in diameter? If it was smaller, denser, and moving faster (could it?) how would that affect the scenario?

"but what if the (meteorite) is considerably smaller than 4" (10cm) in diameter? If it was smaller, denser, and moving faster (could it?) how would that affect the scenario?"

Hi EnviroMan,

Post 40, by Skeeter, stated (convincingly after some digging for further information) that these small meteorites are slowed down by atmospheric drag to velocities that are determined by falling freely through our atmosphere.

I estimated the velocity by some known data:

falling velocity of a parachuter in free fall, maximum density of iron nickel meteorite, drag proportional to square of velocity.

Initial velocity is limited by our solar system to around 45Km/s, as above this velocity any object will not remain in our solar system. And despite an extended search no meteorite has ever been detected with a velocity that clearly indicates its extra-solar origin.

I allowed some more cross section for the ejecta to leave the high pressure region. (4" incoming object, 6" carved out hole is (36-16)/16 or 20/16 in area.)

If these objects came from a test of a high velocity gun then it's possible that any other ratio is existing depending on velocity of incoming projectile. I once saw a photo of the result of a 0.5" dia and 0.6" length polyethylene projectile that hit an aluminum (likely 6061) block at 6km/s. It carved a nearly half-sphere of 3 to 4" diameter.

I am not sure about objects that come in nearly vertical. Do these have a higher final velocity?

Same uncertainty: how big is the braking force in the high velocity region, shock-wave heating and plasma generating at even higher velocity will take considerable energy and thus add to braking force.

RHABE

Good answer, good answer, good answer.

WHat would it take to punch through the ice adiabatically?

milo

In the movie Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, The pods were about 6" in dia. They were pointed, so they would slip right through that ice. Mariom, has anyone near you been reported missing? .......What do any of us really know about this Mariom??????Am I the only one that noticed that Mariom has not perfected the language??????

More details :

To my dude Rocketsurgeon, the lake is 150' away from my house and I walk around it twice a day, witnessed everything but what made holes.

Skeeter, I dug the lake and put six 17" to 21" smallmouth bass in it, found one dead last weekend. Thanks for the search.

Thank you Rhabe for interesting precisions, think you got the best lead.

Thought I had lost proofs of the event, but Enviroman's question got me looking for a third time and I FOUND THEM !

I will try to join them.

How did you find them?

Ahh, photos?? That will breathe new life into this dying discussion.

Sorry, did not find the way to join photos to this discussion.

Suggestions anyone?

As stated last reply, found images ( not the meteorites ) that I thought were lost, taken the day objects fell.

And sorry Bob-c, haven't heard about you either and please excuse if my language is not up to your expectations... I'm french Canadian and learnt what I know about english in scool , and in Florida.

Left ten tears ago and chances to practice are pretty rare around here.

mariom,

We are waiting excitedly for your photos. How one posts photos on this site depends upon which type of computer you have. Do you have a PC or Mac? If you have a Mac, I can help, if PC, then someone else will have to help you.

Regards, Skeeter

I have a mac.

Since Skeeter hasn't replied yet... On a Mac, first, you need to be using FireFox to post pictures. If you aren't already using it, download and install Firefox from Mozilla.

If you are using Safari right now, before you quit Safari, copy the address of this site (http://cr4...) so you can paste it into Firefox after you start it.

Assuming the pictures are in iPhoto, export them as JPEGs to the desktop or other known location. While writing your post in CR4, click on the camera icon, then on the

Browse Button. If you see anything strange like the scrollbar in the screen shot below, just ignore it.

Navigate to the photo location and select one. Then click on the Submit button. The photo Should show up in your post. Good Luck!

Just in case, I'm using OS10.5.2 on a MacBook Pro, with FireFox 2.0.0.14

Dick

mariom,

I can feel it... we are getting closer and closer to viewing those photos.

For some reason, perhaps lack of computer memory, I couldn't use Firefox to manipulate photos, as was suggested. I had to use http://www.flickr.com, as an intermediate site to upload my pictures. If you go to the Flickr site, then just follow instructions to upload your photos after you register. Once you have accomplished that, then you can save them to your desktop, and click and drag to the message box at CR4. The URL for the photos at Flickr will show up within this message box. I know it sounds like a lot of hoooie, but once you have gone through the steps, it's fairly easy. Then, anyone wishing to view your photos will be taken to Flickr to see them after they click on the URL.

Good luck.

Skeeter

I meant no criticism of you at all. My comments were meant as reminder of the movie I mentioned. In that movie there were pods that came from outer space. The pods would take over the shape of the people that were near it. My question was supposed to imply that you may have been replaced by one of these pods. Invasion of the body snatchers was one of those real cheesy movies that were great entertainment when we were younger, but now seem so dumb.

I would never attempt to criticize another person. I certainly have more than my share of faults. Please accept my apology, and send us pictures of what made the holes.

To easily add graphics to your Post, please read: http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/15743

Kind Regards....

Here is a link to mariom's photos of the ice holes... Be sure to click on the flickr photos for larger images.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/iskeeter/?saved=1

In one photo I see what appears to be several tiny bits of debris, possibly brought up from the pond's bottom or flakes off of a meteorite. Also, there appears to be some short radial cracks in the ice pointing to the hole's center (not likely caused by an auger).

Thanks for the photos, mariom! I'm wondering, if you saved any of those bits of material from around the hole.

Thanks for passing those on...

My pleasure... I got to look at them first... he, he, he, he.

More photos from mariom... http://www.flickr.com/photos/iskeeter/?saved=1

Thanks for wiring photos Skeeter, very kind of you.

No harm done Bobc, nothing snatched me, but now that you suggest... My ex-wife became pretty weird at taht time....

Now you can see that except my foot prints, snow was touchless; splash #1 is pretty important and #2 smaller; no drill can make hole this shape;Seems that there's is less than 2 feet of snow, but water had soaked ti down and what's left is almost up to my knees and I'm 6' tall.

Debris seen around the hole were pieces of dirt and trees blown by the wind on the ice before snow storms, no trace of foreign object.

Still have to wait for hydro test on oxygen tanks before diving to search, will keep you informed.

Piec