[meteorite-list] OT: Concorde contrail from Wales making the rounds AGAIN

From: Marco Langbroek <marco.langbroek_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:54:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4E6DD6F1.4070200_at_wanadoo.nl>

Interesting story Bob, pointing out that the "snowballing" effect (as you put
it) of NASA's initial misinterpretation in this reverberates deeply. People look
to NASA as "the ultimate experts on space matters", and in many instances they
are. But in this case, NASA goofed badly.

At that time (2003), and being involved in the initial doubts after the picture
appeared on the NASA website as APOD, I wrote an essay for the then widely read
CCNet of 4 October 2003 (CCNet = Cambridge Conference Network - at that time a
widely read semi-scholarly newsletter focussing on the NEO threath but since
gone over to the "Dark Side" alas).

It is the first entry (disregard the links in the menu on top) here:

http://dmsweb.home.xs4all.nl/fireballs/wales_event_24092003.html

It gives a complete summary about how the prolonged debate on this picture
developed (this was written before it was definitely identified as being the
contrail of Concorde by Rob, but with already clear it was a contrail and not a
fireball indeed). It continues with some lessons we can learn from this case.

The people responsible for the APOD at that time were not so amused by what I
wrote about the role of NASA in this, by the way, as I remember one of them sent
me a very morose e-mail as a response.

Your story below however, clearly shows what impact the mistaken early
endorsement of the "fireball" interpretation by the NASA APOD people at that
time had and still has.

I reckon we will keep seeing this one pop up it's head from time to time. The
more since the original picture is still up on the NASA website with a caption
that is still unneccesarily ambiguous.

- Marco




> Another tidbit which shows how this kind of misinformation can "snowball":
>
> My story takes place several years after this fiasco appeared in the Press. In 2006 I was was contacted by certain astronomers at the Griffith Observatory to review the design plans for the proposed meteorite displays
> that were going into the "refurbished G.O."
>
> Those meteorite displays were expertly done and I had nothing but praise for the planned design.? But before I departed, they wanted to show me the designs for the "Comets and Meteors" display which they were very proud of (but I hadn't been a consultant).?
>
> Lo and behold, very prominent in the center of the display was this image of the "Concorde contrail", but it was being used as an example of a "meteorite-dropping fireball"! Before I could think of a more tactful phrase, I blurted-out, "You can't use that image; it's been debunked!"
>
> Unfortunately, that ruffled some feathers. And I didn't score any points when I detailed how Rob confirmed that it was a contrail from a specific Concorde flight. They got defensive. They were deciding to side with NASA's opinion, instead of my "story". But when they found out that my "story" was true, then they were really put-out.
>
> Needless to say, I wasn't invited back - "my services were no longer needed"...
> ... but they did replace the debunked image with a genuine fireball image.
>
> - Bob V.
Received on Mon 12 Sep 2011 05:54:57 AM PDT