RE: What has crashed on one of the islands of Antartica?
I don't understand what you mean by curved line. I think the line is actually straight from one point to the other, it's just it's traveling between two mountain peaks.
After the initial impact, it kept traveling forward but went down from the first mountain peak into what is essentially a valley, then out towards the other peak but stopping in the middle. I believe the changes in elevation, give the appearance of curvature, but the line it travels is actually straight. What do you think about that idea?
Also something else I just notice right now. It appears to have some kind of ring around the nose/front end or tip of the object. Measuring distance from the edge of the ring, to the main object, then adding that into the opposite side of the object, makes it roughly 60 feet wide. Also, looking at that ring, makes me think there's more to this object under the snow or ice.
Well looking from the 2D view it looks like a curved line, atleast from my device, haha it could be that, however something travelling across contour lines would be a lot less straight simply due to the nature of the surface. It could be a number of factors, such as terrain and so forth. I think it has to do a lot with the shape of the object acually. Such as a wing digging into the left side causing it to veer left.
Yep I saw the ring. The general consensus as far as I've studied up on the object is that it is an avalanche, although I dont understand how an avalanche can cause an almost perfect trail mark like that, its an interesting find thats for sure!
Yea, this is what I was saying. Because of the varying changes in height and or conditions along the path it's taken, I think it just looks like it's more curved than it is. Looking at it closely, from the initial impact point to final resting it looks like there's a slight dip in the snow between the 2 peaks. So because it goes down then back up, when looking at it straight on, it appears to curve. When looking from a side view, you can see it's actually a straight line.
In regard to the silly disinformation being pedaled by certain individuals in the media and NASA, which I believe are just trying to hide this. But are in somewhat of a catch 22 because now it was seen by the masses, so if they take it down it will be obvious they are trying to hide something. They would rather this not be in our view and up for scrutiny. Anyway, there's no way this is simply ice breaking away from the mountain. I have 3 points of contention to dispute this ice narrative and what's funny is, they give this reasoning, with no evidence or other examples in which this same result was duplicated.
Where did the ice come from anyway, because I can't see any other ice anywhere in this image, ANYWHERE! A lot of snow, can even see the mountain peaks themselves, but no ice.
If zoomed in close, you can clearly see a deep impact crater where this thing hit the snow after hitting the mountain. If it was an avalanche, this would not have happened. It would have down what the other snow has done, slide down the and come to a rest in short distance from the mountain, not over 3,000 feet from the mountain lol! that is not a significant enough fall to generate that much momentum.
If you zoom out on the entire image, it is also clear that there is now a crater in the entire mountain top itself where this thing initially hit, and then it looks like bounced off and impacted the ground. Therefore the ground was the second impact not the first.