[meteorite-list] Wales images

From: Matson, Robert <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:28:21 2004
Message-ID: <AF564D2B9D91D411B9FE00508BF1C86901B4EDD0_at_US-Torrance.mail.saic.com>

Hi All,

I see the Wales event controversy is still alive and well -- that's
good! Everyone has a chance to learn about the scientific method
being applied in a very testable case.

Bj=F8rn S=F8rheim asks:

> I wonder what you really are doing here, Marco?
> Is this what you would call science or 'seeking the truth'?
> Are you trying to find the best explanation, or is it something
> else?

Marco has a wealth of experience with bolide photography, so you
can be sure that it isn't his passion to debunk potential bolide
images. I'm sure Marco would be perfectly happy if this turns out
to be a case of an actual bolide. He, like me, simply has an opinion
based on the available information that the Wales event was not a
meteor, and has offered some possible alternative explanations for
what was photographed.

> That sometimes there are some conditions by a minority of aeroplanes
> that come close to producing what was pictured does NOT mean that
> you or anyone else has proven that that cloud in the picture
> were made by an aeroplane that day.

I would counter that two pictures of an aerial phenomenon with
no corresponding verbal account of the object and dynamics that
produced it is hardly "proof" of a meteoric event.

> You must clearly also explain why it can't be a meteor.
> And you can't. Meteors do look exactly like that.

The only meteor trails that qualitatively resemble the contrail
in the images are generated by SPECTACULAR bolides. Do you
realize how large an object is necessary to produce this sort
of display? That's the riddle you have to answer: how does
a bolide produce a spectacular contrail in a heavily populated
area under clear skies at an optimum time of day without hundreds
of witnesses?

You have countered with:

> I wonder why should people report it when there were good digital
> pictures of it all over the place?

Not everybody is on the internet, and I think you overestimate
how many people -- even in the UK -- have seen these images.

> And when it has been photographed on the fastest and best
> media there is, it has been proven that it is for real.

Just so we're clear, the only thing that has been proven is
that the image wasn't faked. I'm going to assume that's what
you mean, since the images themselves certainly don't prove
it was a meteor.

> ...Added to that they made the mistake to think it was huge,
> since on the picture it was huge. Mistake no. 2. It was merely
> zoomed! No -20 fireball, sorry!! Just the average one.

You've got to get it out of your head that an "average" bolide
can produce a display like this. It would have to be quite
substantial. This is not something a 20-kg meteoroid could do.

As to a possible report of the bolide producing the display
actually being observed, you offer the following quote:

'...Jonathan, from Pencoed, near Bridgend, was taking action
photographs of his skateboarding friends when **they spotted
the orange ball of fire tearing across the evening sky**.'

You must be careful when interpreting media reports like this.
There are no quotes attributed to Jonathan or his friends that
*specifically* say they saw a meteor in flight. The evidence
suggests that the phrase "tearing across the evening sky" is
based on a coupling of the aftermath with an ~assumption~ of
what caused it. When people see bolides, one of the first
things they tend to report is how fast it was moving, what
direction, how long it was visible -- that sort of thing.

> Jonathan said, "I was skateboarding with my mates in the park
> when a little boy pointed into the sky and said, 'The sun's
> exploding'. "I looked up and **saw a fireball dropping
> through the sky** but I had no idea what it was."

Right here you have inconsistent statements -- one implying
a stationary event, the other implying motion. Someone should
ask Jonathan and his mates point-blank if they actually saw
motion, or inferred it from the aftermath. Keep in mind that
the second photographer has said nothing about observing the
bolide in flight. I ask you: how did he miss it?! Another
question, which may not be answerable, is how close together
in time were the photographs from separate locations taken?
This is a crucial question, and if you answer it honestly I
think you will begin to see a problem with the bolide explanation.

You see, if it was a bolide, then the contrail that was generated
will change morphologically on a fairly fast time scale due to
the changing altitude. Given the similarity of the images, then,
they would have to have been taken within seconds of each other --
probably no more than 10 or 20 seconds, and more importantly they
would have to have been taken less than a minute after the bolide
entered. So you have two separate parties independently photographing
a bolide contrail at nearly the same time within a minute of it
happening, and yet neither party (at least conclusively, yet)
witnessed the bolide itself? While this is remotely ~possible~,
isn't it far more likely that two groups saw the same static
contrail, and took images of it perhaps several minutes apart?

> Get the azimut and height (Az1,h1) of the first Jonathan
> picture from Pencoed. Get the azimut and height (Az2,h2) of
> the Heywood picture from Porthcawl. Not hard to do, but you
> must be on the spot. Might add that Pencoed and Pothcawl is
> ~15.5 km apart. Do the math, and find the distance and height
> where the sighting lines meet.

I'll be happy to give it a shot. But I can tell you already
that the significantly different slopes of the track as seen
from two locations so close together suggests that the altitude
is lower rather than higher.

--Rob
Received on Sat 04 Oct 2003 07:19:57 PM PDT