[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Fireball comments
Hello,
Well, goes to show that whenever reports turn up, you should take notice,
but keep your head cool. Always try to sieve fact from fiction, albeit
not always possible. What I personally try to do, is keeping track of the
facts behind a possible observation. What should have been observed if
the 'interpretation' of an impact is true? What is actually observed. Do
reports meet up to the conclusions (in the Greenland event, this was a
definite 'No')? etc.
If everybody would respond in this way, a clear picture would quicker
emerge, and less hype would penetrate into newsgroups. But it is equaly
important is my opinion, that you should not reject access to reports on
this kind on newsgroups like meteorbs beforehand. What if a true impact
has happened somewhere?! This translate to being critical in a sincere way.
So it all comes down to personall resposibility, and that is (as the
question matters for this newsgroup) what should be encouraged and pursued.
Both from
amateurs, as well as astronomers that might be astronomers, but not always
meteor specialist. Try to be responsible in your judgements, and act
concordingly in replies. That solves matters most quickly, and thuis
determines whether a repiort is worth to explore on this newsgroup or not.
That helps us to get rid of fierce advocacy of dubious cases leading to
flamed debates, and explore debates that are worth the efforts. Long
threads on subjects that include some 'controversy' and are perhaps not
central to meteor obvservations are not bad, but long
threads with debates focussing on dubious matter because people lose face
of the reality behind reports and phenomenon are.
-Marco
References: