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

Re: (meteorobs) Additional information on daylight fireball

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasadot gov/apod/ap031001.html
Caption states 'roughly one minute' and data states 4:41 was the time 
interval.  That's a big difference and if it was me I would be taking 
more than 2 pictures.
Shutter speed has also been changed between the 2 pictures which strikes 
me as odd.  Since both pictures are exceptional, why change?
He's also moved the camera to the left and closer to the house which 
should increase the separation between the fireball and the roof and not 
decrease it.
Why move at all?  He's got an excellent angle.

If the event actually last more than 5 minutes, there would be many 
accounts and not just the one.

In the first picture, if you look at the sky to the right of the gutter 
you see the cloud glow from sunset and in the 2nd picture no cloud 
glow.  That tends to reenforce the actual time between pictures as 4:41 
rather than 'roughly one minute'.

1st pix has what I'll call nearly perpendicular contrails and in the 2nd 
the contrails are better defined.  Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Also, in the 2nd pix, wispy clouds are now between the object and the 
fireball.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/fuji_s602z.html for info 
about the camera
... picture takers can snap 1.8 frames/second up to 40 frames
# unique "Final 5" burst mode captures up to 25 images and stores the last 
five frames
# 1.8 frames/second up to 40 frames in 1M resolution mode

If  anybody does contact him, ask for the original pictures.

It looks phony to me.
Charles Speegle

Geert Barentsen wrote:

> Group,
>
> Important! Both photographs still seem to have their EXIFF-headers, 
> wich contains data usually stored by the digital camera when pictures 
> are taken. This header can be read by any advanced picture viewer. 
> I'll copy the contents here for your convenience:
>
> First photograph header:
> Camera Model Name: FinePix S602 ZOOM
> Shooting Date/Time: 24-9-2003 19:13:37
> Tv( Shutter Speed): 1/220
> Av( Aperture Value): 2.8
> Exposure Compensation: 0
> ISO Speed: 200
> Image Size: 1280x960
> Flash: Off
> File Size: 345KB
>
> Second photograph header:
> Camera Model Name: FinePix S602 ZOOM
> Shooting Date/Time: 24-9-2003 19:18:18
> Tv( Shutter Speed): 1/105
> Av( Aperture Value): 2.8
> Exposure Compensation: 0
> ISO Speed: 200
> Image Size: 1280x960
> Flash: Off
> File Size: 337KB
>
>
> According to this information: the pictures were taken at 19:13:37 and 
> 19:18:18 camera time (=local Wales time; UT +1?), on wednesday 
> 24/09/2003.
>
> It is very easy to manually change or fake these parameters, but I 
> doubt an average teenager would think about this when submitting a 
> fake photograph to APOD. Therefore, this data convinces me that the 
> pictures are real, and not the result of advanced computer software 
> (please do note that modern software, like Alias-Wavefront's Maya, 
> allows the creation of photo-realistic "particles&fluids"-effects that 
> are absolutly amazing...)
>
> Ofcourse, we still don't know what we are seeing on these pictures. 
> Here are some personal thoughts:
> -Take a look at the second picture ( 
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasadot gov/apod/image/0310/fireball2_burnett_big.jpg 
> ). Why would light still be emitted from the cloud, eventhough 5 
> minuts have past since the first photograph?
> -In the second picture, some exterior parts seem brighter than the 
> core?! (->reflections?)
> -Why wouldn't we have heard about such fireball event earlier?
>
> Anyway, there's only one way to learn more; let's contact "Jon 
> Burnett" (Burnskatejon@aol.com), and get more details. If we are 
> talking about solar reflections here, we should be able to derive that 
> immediatly from a personal report of Jon's visual experience. I'm 
> convinced this will be the case, eventhough it would've been a 
> **beep** amazing picture :-)
>
> Kind regards,
> Geert



The archive and Web site for our list is at http://www.meteorobs.org
To stop getting all email from the 'meteorobs' lists, use our Webform:
http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html
References: