I am not sure that we can definitely resolve this
(it would be a surprise to me if I could given the
small amount of information available), but this
discussion doesn't seem to be following very
strict logic, and perhaps I can help a bit there.
To begin with, we should all keep in mind that
to have the discussion at all we must discount
hoaxes both by and *upon* the photographer. We must make this leap of faith (no offense intended to Mr Pryde), but should always keep it in the back of our minds.
Having taken this step, lets not forget (as
many here seem to have done) what data we are
offered. For example, the lamp "in" the fireball
"was not working" after the picture. I think we
can presume that we would have been explicitly
told if it had been exploded or melted, and we
were not.
It is not possible for me, at least, to definitively determine
the scale of the event. It does seem to me that if
the fireball was real, and had enveloped the
lamp, there would likely remain some sign of it.
Likewise if it was real and exploded behind the
lamp, we would hope to see the lamp outlined in it.
Neither is the case. Thus it seems likely that the
event happened *in front of* the lamp.
If this is the case, then we have no reason to
think that the event was very big, and in fact if it was very close to the camera it might have been quite small.
A close look at the fireball shows a clear/white
"shock wave" somewhat separate from the yellow
fireball itself. If the lens opened a bit before
the flash was taken, and if the fireball was quite
close to the camera, then we can imagine (as one
possibility) something coming obliquely at the camera across the little bay, exploding in front of the camera just as the lens opened, leaving a small cloud of smoke or dust in a shock front which was then illuminated by the flash.
I do not say "this is what happened". And I have
heard experts say this could not have been a meteor.
But if a small meteor *nearly* hit the ground but
the last remnant exploded (admittedly producing no
fragments, so it wasn't likely a iron meteor. Perhaps it was just an icy remnant of a more complex body) near the front of the camera, coincidentally in line with the lamp post,
it seems that the result would look very much like this picture.
The fact that it was closer, and thus smaller than it appears, might explain why there are no signs of the explosion or trail in the next frame, 15 seconds later, as one might expect if the event were larger and farther away.
If we accept that the event was small and close to the camera, we can probably find other
explanations, but I confess that I like the small meteorite explanation best given the circumstances../Leigh Clayton [Toronto, Canada]
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure that we can definitely resolve this (it would be a surprise to me if I could given the small amount of information available), but this discussion doesn't seem to be following very strict logic, and perhaps I can help a bit there. To begin with, we should all keep in mind that to have the discussion at all we must discount hoaxes both by and *upon* the photographer. We must make this leap of faith (no offense intended to Mr Pryde), but should always keep it in the back of our minds. Having taken this step, lets not forget (as many here seem to have done) what data we are offered. For example, the lamp "in" the fireball "was not working" after the picture. I think we can presume that we would have been explicitly told if it had been exploded or melted, and we were not. It is not possible for me, at least, to definitively determine the scale of the event. It does seem to me that if the fireball was real, and had enveloped the lamp, there would likely remain some sign of it. Likewise if it was real and exploded behind the lamp, we would hope to see the lamp outlined in it. Neither is the case. Thus it seems likely that the event happened *in front of* the lamp. If this is the case, then we have no reason to think that the event was very big, and in fact if it was very close to the camera it might have been quite small. A close look at the fireball shows a clear/white "shock wave" somewhat separate from the yellow fireball itself. If the lens opened a bit before the flash was taken, and if the fireball was quite close to the camera, then we can imagine (as one possibility) something coming obliquely at the camera across the little bay, exploding in front of the camera just as the lens opened, leaving a small cloud of smoke or dust in a shock front which was then illuminated by the flash. I do not say "this is what happened". And I have heard experts say this could not have been a meteor. But if a small meteor *nearly* hit the ground but the last remnant exploded (admittedly producing no fragments, so it wasn't likely a iron meteor. Perhaps it was just an icy remnant of a more complex body) near the front of the camera, coincidentally in line with the lamp post, it seems that the result would look very much like this picture. The fact that it was closer, and thus smaller than it appears, might explain why there are no signs of the explosion or trail in the next frame, 15 seconds later, as one might expect if the event were larger and farther away. If we accept that the event was small and close to the camera, we can probably find other explanations, but I confess that I like the small meteorite explanation best given the circumstances. ./Leigh Clayton [Toronto, Canada]