[meteorite-list] Park Forest retardation point

From: Adam Hupe <adamhupe_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:22:38 2004
Message-ID: <039701c332a5$30a94c60$b4dbe60c_at_attbi.com>

Hi Robert and List members,

Most of the reports I heard said there was thunder within seconds of seeing
the lights as reported in a newspaper. That is why some eyewitnesses
thought that Chicago was under attack. I agree that all the statements
coming out do not add up but some of them do. The biggest piece of evidence
is the video that has been widely distributed that shows the clouds behind
the meteoroid when it flared up. It also shows that it flashed out at a
very low altitude just like Tatahouine which did not develop secondary
fusion crusts. The Park Forest strewnfield is more round than oval and
there is not a good sorting of rocks by weight, all indicating a low
altitude break up. At first I was skeptical about the low altitude breakup
but evidence can be taken both ways so I am keeping an open mind. A lot of
the reports proved to be erroneous including the one made by a scientist
that the strewnfield was 80 to 120 miles long and that 42 kilos where found
within the first 10 hours.

All the Best,

Adam





----- Original Message -----
From: "Matson, Robert" <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_saic.com>
To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Park Forest retardation point


> Hi List,
>
> I'm with Mike Farmer and Frank Prochaska on this one: it simply
> isn't possible that Park Forest was still luminous at 7000'
> altitude -- there must be an alternate explanation for the
> visual/video observations or interpretation of the cloud deck.
>
> Ignoring for the moment the argument that nearly all comparable
> meteors reach their retardation point at altitudes over 8 times
> higher than this, consider the ramifications of a meteoroid
> still barrelling along at 7000' at a speed high enough to
> ionize the air. Clearly the velocity is still supersonic,
> which means you're going to have sonic booms on the ground
> less than 7 seconds later. I've heard no reports that sonic
> booms came so close in time after the light effects.
>
> Furthermore, stones didn't start hitting the ground until
> minutes later; even if you allow for nearly instantaneous
> deceleration to a low terminal velocity like 150 meters/sec,
> you're still going to have meteorites on the ground less
> than 15 seconds after "lights out". So you see -- the math
> simply doesn't add up.
>
> --Rob
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sat 14 Jun 2003 02:45:55 PM PDT