(meteorobs) Re: wild claims about the hail of mini-comets (fwd)

To: Meteor Observing Mailing List <meteorobs@latrade.com>
Subject: (meteorobs) Re: wild claims about the hail of mini-comets (fwd)
From: Lewis Gramer <dedalus>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 97 15:21:03 -0400
Cc: "Fred H. Francis" <francis@sunmail.chapmandot edu>
Reply-To: meteorobs@latrade.com
Sender: owner-meteorobs

---------------------------

Well, this looks to shape up as a regular scientific bar-fight! Replete with credentialled and highly *pointed* (not to say snippy) proponents on BOTH sides of the question, and little hard data in between...

Clear skies to all!
Lew Gramer, neutral observer
owner-meteorobs@latrade.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Fred H. Francis" <francis@chapmandot edu>
To: dfischer@astro.uni-bonndot de
Cc: imo-news@imonewsdot net
Subject: Re: The wild claims about the hail of mini-comets


Dear Daniel,

Which is more "wild", Dr. Frank's theory, or your analysis?

Did you fail to note in that the photo, as published was clearly
described as a composite (hence, in all probability, a v.l. representation 
of the earth was superimposed for clarity beneath the genuine image of the 
comet)?

Did you fail to note your own recitation of the fact that the image was
taken in the ultra-violet (hence accounting for the object's brightness)? 

Did you fail to note that, in the description of the phenomenon itself,
republished with the latest photo, the reason cited for the almost
complete lack of a v.l. (visual light) signature is that the snowball
breaks-up almost immediatly upon touching the atmosphere, thus dissipating
the bulk of its momentum and thus the possibility of normal luminous
radiation due to atmospheric heating.?

Given that your attack on Dr. Frank's views is so pointed, I must add
that the fact that you obviously did not read much of te material you cite
is at least amazing as the fact that you seem to understand so little of
it.  To compound that by writing a review article on it without actually
(apparently) contacting the NASA folks to at least get their
explanation of the facts which seem to confuse you is truly
marvelous.

As you do not, apparently, understand either Dr. Frank's theory or its
factual/phenomenological basis, I must ask the following question:

How is it possible to write your article without checking the facts, or
do you intend to rely upon intuition and 'common sense'? 

Sincerely,

Fred H. Francis