Wales Fireball Image NOT a Meteor ?!?

(1) JUST A SMOKESCREEN: 'METEOR' PIC WHICH FOOLED NASA

The Sun, 7 October 2003
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003461335,00.html

By PAUL SUTHERLAND
Sun Spaceman

NASA boffins who hailed a British lad's photo as a dramatic snap of
an exploding meteor were exposed as duffers last night.

Jonathan Burnett, 15, had emailed them a picture of what looked like
the trail of a blazing meteor.

NASA saluted it as "Astronomy Picture of the Day" on their website.
But other experts spotted it for what it really was - SUNLIGHT reflecting
off the white trail of a jet.

Robin Scagell, of Britain's Society for Popular Astronomy, said:
"The trail must have been a spectacular sight but it clearly was not
a meteor.

"It was not a hoax and Jonathan is not to blame - he did the right
thing in sending his snapshot to NASA.

"It is surprising NASA jumped to the conclusion this was a meteor
before they examined other possibilities."

The space agency had told Jonathan, of Pencoed, South Wales, that
his picture showed a sofa-sized meteor exploding in a fireball.

Yesterday, they admitted getting it horribly wrong.

And the agency - based in Houston, Texas - has amended its website
caption.

It now says: "Perhaps a better hypothesis is an unusual airplane
contrail reflecting the setting sun."

Jonathan took the digital photo while out skateboarding.

His dad Paul said: "We never said this was a meteor in the first
place. It was NASA who said that."

(2) The nasa link is http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031001.html


(3) BURNING METEOR "WAS SUPERSONIC CONCORDE"

icWales, 7 October 2003
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100n...ctid=13487771_
method=full_siteid=50082_headline=-Burning-meteor--was-supersonic-Concorde--
name_page.html

IS IT a bird? Is it a plane or is it even a meteor?

The intense debate about what a schoolboy snapped burning up in the
sky while out skateboarding last week rages on.

But the latest in a long line of explanations comes from aircraft
enthusiast Mike Stradling, who claims 15-year-old Jonathan Burnett
actually took a picture of supersonic Concorde and not a galactic
space rock.

Mr Stradling, from Brackla, near Bridgend, said Concorde regularly
flew over South Wales on its flight path to and from the United
States. He said the flames and long smoke trail were from the
jet's engines hitting full power.

His opinion is one of many offered to Jonathan, who contacted an
astronomer at Nasa for an explanation following his remarkable shot.

However, there have been some wacky definitions too including those
from people who've e-mailed the teenager saying the bright orange
fireball was Dr Who's Tardis or even the blazing image of Wales'
red dragon.

But Mr Stradling isadamant. He said, "There's no doubt in my mind
that the picture Jonathan took was of Concorde and not of a meteor.
It regularly flies over South Wales when travelling to and from
the United States.

"The orange flames in the picture would have been from Concorde's
engines."

The remarkable shot has made Jonathan from Pencoed, near Bridgend, a
star at Nasa which made his photo Astronomy Picture of the Day -
beating off pictures from professional competitors from around the
world.

Jonathan was taking action photographs of his skateboarding friends
when they spotted the orange ball of fire tearing across the evening
sky.

The quick-thinking teenager grabbed his new digital camera to capture
the once-in-a-lifetime frame.

Then he e-mailed his picture to the Nasa space centre in Houston,
Texas, where experts said it was one of the best shots of a meteor
they'd ever seen.

There has been doubt cast over the integrity of Jonathan's
photograph, but space experts are now sufficiently confident his
picture is genuine. In fact, they are so excited about what they're
now describing as a "magnificent" shot that they want to hold
a conference to debate it. They want shooting star Jonathan to be
the guest of honour at the event which is likely to be held at the
SpaceGuard Centre, in Knighton, Powys, which analyses the threat of
asteroids to earth.

WELSH 'FIREBALL' MYSTERY UNRAVELLED

Robert Matson

Hi Benny,

Kudos definitely go to Mike Stradling for suggesting the Concorde
as a possible explanation for the contrail. All I did was take it
a step further and research the actual departure time of the
London -- New York daily flight and compute an expected
time of the pass over southern Wales. It all comes together
nicely -- the tracks in the two photos (one from Porthcawl, one
from Pencoed) when input to my triangulation software result in
an aircraft-like trajectory, and the Concorde was in the right
place at the right time going in the right direction to produce
just such a track.

Cheers,
Rob

----
Robert Matson
posted on

Hi again,

I downloaded the latest British Airways Worldwide Timetable, good for
dates from July 1st, 2003 to October 25th, 2003, and have confirmed
that the Concorde is scheduled to leave nightly at 6:30pm out of
Heathrow for JFK at 18:30 out of terminal 4 -- flight BA001. (At least
for the next 17 days). The arrival time is 17:25 at JFK, which is
3 hours 55 minutes later. The website reports that the flight time
is actually only 3 1/2 hours, so there's 25 minutes of fluff in the
schedule. Splitting the fluff equally between Heathrow and JFK means
an ~18:42:30 take off.

Concorde's takeoff speed in 250 mph, and Heathrow is ~180 miles east
of southern Wales. If they flew a straight line and averaged 450 mph
over that distance, they'd be over Porthcawl in 24 minutes. (Given
that they have to fly subsonic over land, I doubt they can average
much more than 450 mph over the first 24 minutes of flight).

So: 18:30 + 00:12:30 + 00:24 = 19:06:30

The Pencoed picture was supposedly taken around 19:13, when the object
producing the contrail is already well out over the water. I don't
know about you, but I'd say the circumstantial evidence is pretty
strong. (One might well ask, "If that's NOT the Concorde's contrail,
where ~is~ the Concorde's contrail, since it ought to be in the same
field of view?!")

Isn't it nice when all the facts come together to form a coherent,
logical, simple explanation? --Rob

WELSH 'FIREBALL' MYSTERY UNRAVELLED

Robert Matson

Hi Benny,

Kudos definitely go to Mike Stradling for suggesting the Concorde
as a possible explanation for the contrail. All I did was take it
a step further and research the actual departure time of the
London -- New York daily flight and compute an expected
time of the pass over southern Wales. It all comes together
nicely -- the tracks in the two photos (one from Porthcawl, one
from Pencoed) when input to my triangulation software result in
an aircraft-like trajectory, and the Concorde was in the right
place at the right time going in the right direction to produce
just such a track.

Cheers,
Rob

----
Robert Matson
posted on

Hi again,

I downloaded the latest British Airways Worldwide Timetable, good for
dates from July 1st, 2003 to October 25th, 2003, and have confirmed
that the Concorde is scheduled to leave nightly at 6:30pm out of
Heathrow for JFK at 18:30 out of terminal 4 -- flight BA001. (At least
for the next 17 days). The arrival time is 17:25 at JFK, which is
3 hours 55 minutes later. The website reports that the flight time
is actually only 3 1/2 hours, so there's 25 minutes of fluff in the
schedule. Splitting the fluff equally between Heathrow and JFK means
an ~18:42:30 take off.

Concorde's takeoff speed in 250 mph, and Heathrow is ~180 miles east
of southern Wales. If they flew a straight line and averaged 450 mph
over that distance, they'd be over Porthcawl in 24 minutes. (Given
that they have to fly subsonic over land, I doubt they can average
much more than 450 mph over the first 24 minutes of flight).

So: 18:30 + 00:12:30 + 00:24 = 19:06:30

The Pencoed picture was supposedly taken around 19:13, when the object
producing the contrail is already well out over the water. I don't
know about you, but I'd say the circumstantial evidence is pretty
strong. (One might well ask, "If that's NOT the Concorde's contrail,
where ~is~ the Concorde's contrail, since it ought to be in the same
field of view?!")

Isn't it nice when all the facts come together to form a coherent,
logical, simple explanation? --Rob

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:08:11 GMT, "James Oberg"
wrote:
(One might well ask, "If that's NOT the Concorde's contrail,
where ~is~ the Concorde's contrail, since it ought to be in the same
field of view?!")

Since when do all aircraft always produce visible contrails?

Brian

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:08:11 GMT, "James Oberg"
wrote:
(One might well ask, "If that's NOT the Concorde's contrail,
where ~is~ the Concorde's contrail, since it ought to be in the same
field of view?!")

Since when do all aircraft always produce visible contrails?

Brian

"James Oberg" writes:

(1) JUST A SMOKESCREEN: 'METEOR' PIC WHICH FOOLED NASA

The Sun, 7 October 2003
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003461335,00.html

By PAUL SUTHERLAND
Sun Spaceman

NASA boffins who hailed a British lad's photo as a dramatic snap of
an exploding meteor were exposed as duffers last night.

[...]

And the agency - based in Houston, Texas - has amended its website
caption.

NASA has a large presence in Houston, but I don't see how it can be said
to be "based" there. HQ is DC.

It now says: "Perhaps a better hypothesis is an unusual airplane
contrail reflecting the setting sun."

Nice redundant set of weasel words there. Given that it's a hypothesis,
those smart people at NASA could simply say "A better hypothesis..."

(2) The nasa link is http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031001.html

Now this web site is in Maryland, not Texas, right?

"James Oberg" writes:

(1) JUST A SMOKESCREEN: 'METEOR' PIC WHICH FOOLED NASA

The Sun, 7 October 2003
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003461335,00.html

By PAUL SUTHERLAND
Sun Spaceman

NASA boffins who hailed a British lad's photo as a dramatic snap of
an exploding meteor were exposed as duffers last night.

[...]

And the agency - based in Houston, Texas - has amended its website
caption.

NASA has a large presence in Houston, but I don't see how it can be said
to be "based" there. HQ is DC.

It now says: "Perhaps a better hypothesis is an unusual airplane
contrail reflecting the setting sun."

Nice redundant set of weasel words there. Given that it's a hypothesis,
those smart people at NASA could simply say "A better hypothesis..."

(2) The nasa link is http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031001.html

Now this web site is in Maryland, not Texas, right?