[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: (meteorobs) TWA800 and meteors

Dear Mr. Mielke,

I am writing to express my own concerns with the hypothesis that a
meteorite strike downed TWA Flight 800.  I know that yourself and,
especially, Mr. Davias have become frustrated by the reluctance of the
general scientific community and the AMS in particular to support your
ideas.  While the views expressed here are my own and do not constitute an
"official" AMS response, I hope to elucidate some of the reasons for our
reluctance to accept this hypothesis.

(1)  A meteorite strike represents the LEAST likely probable cause for the
accident.  Even my quick little "cocktail napkin" calculation places the
probability in the order of billions.  Even if some other cause has only a
1 in a million chance of occurring, this is still more than 1000 times more
probable than a meteorite strike.  In order for a meteorite strike to be
seriously considered there must be some very direct evidence of such a
strike on the aircraft itself, by careful analysis of the remains.

(2)  Unfortunately, such evidence is going to be very difficult to obtain.
Stony meteorites have a tendency to shatter or break apart upon impact with
a man-made surface, and in this case, such fragments would have also had to
survive a violent explosion and remain with the aircraft fragments after
dropping into the ocean.  In order for a meteoritic cause to be
pin-pointed, meteorite fragments need to be found imbedded in the wreckage.
 Looking for trace elements and meteoritic metals will not work because the
ocean is saturated with such elements due to the constant influx of
micro-meteorites.  The sea floor is also saturated with such elements and
microscopic meteoritic particles.  

As a first step, a puncture wound, or wounds, in the skin of the
aircraftmight be easier to identify, but even if this is found, a meteorite
impact is still the least likely cause.  A man-made object is still far
more likely.

(3)  The eyewitness accounts that you quote indicate that this "streak of
light" contacted the aircraft.  If this is correct, then a non-meteoric
origin is indicated here.  This is because meteorite dropping fireballs
stop emitting visible light far above the altitudes where most aircraft
travel.  As a general rule, meteorite dropping fireballs stop producing
light while still at an altitude of of about 15 to 20 km (9 to 13 miles)
and a velocity of about 2 to 4 km/sec.  The remaining fragments continue to
fall invisibly, very quickly losing their remaining cosmic velocity, in
what is called "dark flight."  The fragments will then arc ballistically
down at a terminal velocity of generally 200 to 400 mph.  Note also that
such stones are not "glowing hot" as is popularly supposed, due to the
efficiency of the ablation process to remove heat from the meteorite's
interior.  A "streak of light" contacting the aircraft at the moment of
explosion would be indicative of some other cause beyond meteoric impact.

For those eyewitness accounts which placed the time of the fireball some
seconds before the aircraft explosion and perhaps not actually contacting
the aircraft, again, some further evidence is needed before a causal
relationship can be shown.  Chasing after fireballs via eyewitness accounts
only is an extremely shaky business when your only aim is to find a
potential meteorite, but I think that perceptions and memories are even
more blurred when a national tragedy is involved.  Some direct
photographic, or even better, video footage would be highly desired, in
addition to direct impact evidence within the wreckage itself.

Finally, both yourself and Mr. Davias frequently include quotes indicating
that a good investigator is one who is willing to be open minded and accept
the highly improbable.  I would like to ammend this point slightly.,  In my
view, the hallmark of a good scientist is a constant attitude of open
minded skepticism:  that is, the ability to consider all of the
possibilities, but a reluctance to accept any of them.  The very best
scientist is one who is skeptical of even his or her own ideas and
theories.    To become accepted, a theory must explain nearly all of the
gathered evidence , and pass whatever tests can be applied.  Even then, the
theory is still subject to change or complete discard if additional
evidence does not support it.  One of the most frequent traps which
scientist fall into is to become so wrapped up in a pet theory that they
cannot see their way out of it -- even to the point of ignoring or
rationalizing away all evidence to the contrary.  While this behavior is
typical of our human nature, it is something which we must guard against if
we are to seek after the real Truth, as good science is supposed to do.

I sincerely hope that the true cause for the accident can be identified in
the near future, especially in order to give some answers to those who lost
loved ones in the event.  In order to reach the conclusion that something
as remotely possible as a meteorite strike cause this tragedy will require
some very careful investigation and substantial evidence.  I would hate to
see the investigators jump on this nearly impossible scenario, only to miss
the real cause.

Take care,

     Jim 


James Richardson
Graceville, Florida
richardson@digitalexp.com

Operations Manager / Radiometeor Project Coordinator
American Meteor Society (AMS)
http://www.serve.com/meteors/
References: