First Meteorite 'photographed' hitting Earth

[earth_bound_misfit]

Meteorite 'photographed' hitting Earth<br />By Nigel Adlam<br />November 24, 2004<br /><br />NORTHERN Territory scientists were last night studying what could be the first photograph of a meteorite hitting Earth.<br /><br />The chances of an impact being captured on film are millions to one. <br />"If this is true, it's one of the most remarkable pictures ever taken," astronomy tutor Geoff Carr said yesterday. <br />The photograph was taken by keen amateur photographer Wayne Pryde as he stood near the Darwin Cenotaph on The Esplanade and looked down to Fort Hill Wharf on Monday evening. <br /><br />The meteorite, which could have been as small as a grain of sand, would have been travelling about 30,000km/h. <br /><br />Mr Pryde believes a tiny piece of space rock hit the top of a 20m lamp post on the wharf. <br />He said the explosion on impact could be seen clearly in the photograph. <br />The "tube" created by the meteorite as it hurtled towards Earth is harder to pick out. <br />"I was taking a series of time-lapse pictures of the build-up of clouds," Mr Pryde said. <br />"I did not realise I had snapped the meteorite until later." <br />The wharf lamp bulb was yesterday found to be blown but the top of the post will not be checked for damage until today. <br />Experts believe the meteorite may not have hit the lamp post, but metal elsewhere on the wharf. <br /><br /><br />Mr Pryde, 31, is an IT expert but he denied the photograph had been digitally altered. <br />Photographic experts also said the shot had not been doctored. <br />Mr Carr, who teaches at Charles Darwin University, said the picture would create interest among astronomers worldwide. <br />He said most of the thousands of meteors heading towards Earth burnt up before landing. <br />"Nobody has ever photographed one hitting Earth," he said. <br />Mr Carr said the explosion could have been caused by lightning. <br />"But I doubt this very much - the trajectory is too straight," he said. <br /><br />AAP<br /><br />Orginal acticle <</safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[diogenes]

Has anyone checked the area for anomalous materials or unexpected heating?<br /><br />

 

[Maddad]

This would be a great photo if it really turns out to be authentic. Hopefully we'll find out one way or the other soon.

 

[odysseus145]

The image is being discussed at the badastronomy forums and was analyzed by Phil Plait. The general consenses is that it is not a meteor, but a bug that got caught in the camera flash. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Must have been a digital camera then to have bugs.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This would be a great photo if it really turns out to be authentic. Hopefully we'll find out one way or the other soon. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The photo itself is authentic, but the people running the camera don't know what they captured. This is one frame out of a series intended for cloud observations, and the dark streak and flash do not appear on either the frame before or after this one. APOD ran this picture and has a forum for discussing it as well. I didn't take the time to see what theories were being bandied about there, though. They did say that the light bulb where the flash is was burned out when they checked it afterwards.<br /><br />APOD's caption for the picture reads:<br /><br /><i>Explanation: Meteor experts don't think it's a meteor. Atmospheric scientists don't think it's lightning. The photographer insists that the streak and flash on the above image has not been created digitally. So what is it? Nobody is sure. APOD's editors do not claim to know - one purpose of posting this image is to mine the eclectic brain trust of APOD's readers to help see if some unusual phenomenon was caught serendipitously. The strange features were captured on a series of images intended to monitor cloud changes in the background. Images taken just before and after the above frame show no streak or flash. The light pole near the flash has been inspected and does not show any damage, although the light inside was not working. If you think you know what is going on, instead of sending us email please participate in an online discussion. If a convincing argument or consensus is reached, the answer will be posted on APOD at a later date.</i><br /><br />Here's the link for their discussion:<br />http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/viewtopic.php?t=249 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

I got the pic, and the before and after pics, and read the photog's notes. He doesn't state he used a flash, which makes sense since he's imaging the <i>clouds</i>. So we can pretty well ignore anyone who has a "the flash captured a bug near the camera" theory.<br /><br />I played with it a bunch of ways, eventually cycling the histogram through a few times (this increases the contrast across neighboring pixels, by sacrificing overall image comprehensibility). I applied the same histogram to the after image... and the contrail is just discernable, as it drifts down or to the left (or both) and fades.

 

[bobvanx]

Regarding the flash:<br /><br /><br />[edit]<br />The EXIF data reads "Flash:undefined value".<br /><br />In math, that's a "divide by zero" error.

 

[mike490]

False alarm folks. That was me.<br /><br />The speed sounds about right but it was a little bigger than a grain of sand.