[meteorite-list] Mystery object in photo

From: Chris Peterson <clp_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed Dec 8 10:46:40 2004
Message-ID: <0ff701c4dd3d$1888d260$f551040a_at_bellatrix>

Hi Sterling-

While I appreciate your efforts at approaching this in a scholarly way, and
agree completely that there is an awful lot of wasted bandwidth on the
discussion list endorsed by APOD, your view an mine are quite different, and
point to the difficulties of interpreting very subtle effect in images-
especially JPEG images.

In particular, I disagree with the following physical observations:

-That there is a correlated brightness increase in the inlet. I see only a
variation caused by the surface chop changing the sky reflection. There are
various areas of each image that shift slightly in brightness, sometimes
more, sometimes less.

-Your assessment of the difference image. The difference image I made shows
the streak extending off the left edge of the image, not stopping. It also
shows an un-arced path that varies in width over its length and is slightly
wider overall at the left edge, tapering toward the right. Again, these are
subtle effects, and working with JPEG images is pushing everything towards
the noise limits.

I remain convinced this is not a physical object moving at high speed. There
is simply no mechanism for any thing meteoric- regardless of density- to
make it to the surface with supersonic or hypersonic speed and not have been
generating a lot of very obvious activity in the seconds before that. The
idea that we are seeing something right in front of the lens is much
simpler, can explain all of the features of the image, and doesn't have any
image features that strongly argue against it. Indeed, many of the
interpretation details- the actual length of the streak, the curvature of
the streak, the uniformity of the streak, are largely irrelevant to the bug
theory, but not to any high-speed object theory.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this (if anything). Of course,
if those little white pixels on the image really are faces turning towards
something, and these witnesses turn up with a story, that will be very
interesting. Until then, there is nothing but three noisy images to work
with, and I'll stick with the simplest explanation.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sterling K. Webb" <kelly_at_bhil.com>
To: "Meteorite Mailing List" <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Mystery object in photo


> Hi,
>
> At the moment I start to write this, there are 37 PAGES on the
"official"
> discussion site for the mystery photo, and I've read ALL of them. A great
deal
> of it is waste because most posters are not reading the other posts and
seem
> to be unaware of the basic facts of the physical situation. Many theories
are
> being batted about, mostly uselessly:
>
> Film, lens and shutter defects: It wasn't a film camera; it was a
digital
> camera. It does not have the characteristics of a CCD defect. It does not
seem
> to be a fake.
>
> The streak is the shadow of a jet contrail: Since we know the
geographic
> location and the precise time (encoded in the camera data), we can tell
that
> the photo was taken at or just seconds after the setting of the sun, so
ANY
> aerial shadow is a physical impossibility. A depressing number of
> "contrailists" are professional scientists. Strange phenomena, go away!
Sigh.
> To orient yourself, the camera is facing slightly east of due south.
The
> illumination of the clouds is from the sun below the horizon (the sun is
off
> to the right in the photo). The illumination on the water's surface is
> reflected "cloudglow."
>
> Exploding light bulb: The local utility has inspected the light pole
and
> lamp housing and found NO PHYSICAL DAMAGE of any kind. While the light
bulb
> was found to be non-operable (burned out), everything was physically
intact,
> no leaked sodium vapor, dents, dings, scratches, broken glass, etc.
> Additionally, it is a sodium vapor light bulb, which would go bad by
cycling
> off and on, NOT by a terminal flash like an incandescent bulb. Another
popular
> but useless theory.
>
> Ball lightning: Please! Contact Nikola Tesla right away...
>
> Folks hereabouts on the List seem to like the "Bug" theory. Too bad.
There
> are lots of reasons why the bug theory is wrong, but here's the most
concise
> one. In the frame that shows the "terminal flash" (which, in the bug
theory,
> is the bug itself only inches away from the camera and caught by the
camera
> flash unit), when compared with the before and after frames, the waters of
the
> inlet between the pier and the camera brighten very noticeably, as if
> reflecting the "flash" from the pier, and the near sides of the adjacent
light
> posts brighten to a lesser degree also. The flash is a real source of
> illumination and is located in the vicinity of the pier. No bugs.
>
> Anyone who has puzzled over the mystery photo should look at:
> <http://images.isja.org/images/strange_diff_pryde_01.png>
> This is a "difference" processing, created by subtracting 50% of the
> "before" frame and 50% of the "after" frame, thus isolating only those
> features unique to the "impact" frame. It clearly shows:
> a) the streak in the frame has a definite starting point within the
frame,
>
> b) the streak extends to the "flash" and not beyond it,
> c) the streak is quite uniform in thickness and density, with no taper
nor
> spread and a sharp commencement in the photo,
> d) the streak has a very slight downward arc, i.e., is responding to
the
> force of gravity,
> e) nothing in the photo connects the lamp post with the flash; they
are
> merely adjacent. The streak passes in front of the lamp post. (If
something
> had hit the lamp post or light housing, they would have moved or wobbled
> slightly and hence shown up in the difference analysis, like the leaves on
the
> trees in the left of the difference photo do.)
> f) further along the track of the "object," in front of the flash is a

> compact circular shock wavefront from disruption of the "object" and a
> co-centered sideways-viewed disc of ejecta.
>
> So, we have a physical "object," it was in the frame of view when the
> exposure started, it's showing up in the photo as dark because it is
blocking
> sunlight reflected off the clouds from reaching the imaging element of the
> camera. The streak is not emitting light, in other words. It could be a
shock
> tube of water vapor or even smoke particles, but it's not luminous. It is
> actually faint, blocking only about 5% of the sunlight. There is no way to
> tell the duration of the event, except to say that it could not have
exceeding
> the exposure time (1/20 second).
>
> Only one individual in these hundreds of posts attempted to scale the
> event and determine the sizes and physical parameters of things, which was
> what I was doing, too. A nice comparison. We both chose independently to
base
> our scale on the size of the car parked near the pier. He assumed it was
an
> American-sized car; I assumed it was a smaller Australian-sized car. So
our
> estimates differed by that factor.
> I think the streak is about 2 meters across and 160 meters long; he
thinks
> 205 meters long, and so forth. I make the velocity of the streaking
"object"
> ~2700 meters per second (Mach 8). This velocity calculation is an average
> speed and assumes the streak moves for the full 1/20 second; it could be
> faster; it could be slowing down from a greater velocity. It obviously
halts
> at the flash.
> The flash itself is about 3 meters across with a bright inner core
about
> 1-1/2 meter across. This bright core, by the way, is brighter in absolute
> luminosity in this photo than the bright spot in the cloud deck that
directly
> reflects the sun. VERY bright.
>
> Many posts on the List discussed entry angles, vertical or not. Let me
> just point out that vertical drop only happens after velocity stagnation,
and
> this baby is MOVING! So, angle does not tell us much one way or another.
> As to whether or not an object could penetrate the atmosphere with
this
> residual velocity but without heating to luminescence... Certainly no
stone
> nor iron, small or large, could do so.
> The critical parameter is density. A cometary ice particle, fairly
small,
> with a very low density, can penetrate the atmosphere nearly to the
surface
> without excessive heating or braking. Think densities of less than 0.01
gram
> per cubic centimeter.
> The argument against this, of course, is that it is a special case and
> hence less probable. But possible. Cometary particles with densities this
low
> have been observed, although those observed have been smaller particles
than
> this one would have to have been.
> For those who like to calculate the fall of incoming objects, try an
> object that ends up as a 3 centimeter ball weighing about 100 milligrams
at
> disruption. Try starting with 10 cm. and 1 gm, or with 30 cm and 10 gm.
>
> There are other indications that this was a physically real event.
There
> are two people sitting on benches on the pier. In the "before" frame, they
> seem to be turned away from where the flash will be. But in the "after"
frame,
> they are facing the flash point. Something got their attention.
>
> Ignoring the really weird theories (tiny UFO's, particle beam weapons,
> dark lasers, the CIA, black helicopters, etc.) in the "official"
discussion,
> one popular theory is that this was the launch of a firework or model
rocket.
> PLEASE, if there are any model rocketeers out there who can build a
rocket
> of any kind that can accelerate from a standstill to 5400 meters per
second in
> 1/20 of a second, CALL NASA RIGHT AWAY! We need you.
>
> It's not a conventional meteorite (a stray NWA). It does appear to me
to
> have been something physically "real." You got my two cents worth in the
> "cometary ice particle" bit. But the "mystery" seems to still be a
mystery.
>
> Oh, and they're up to 43 PAGES of "discussion" now.
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
Received on Wed 08 Dec 2004 10:46:23 AM PST