Talk:1972 Great Daylight Fireball

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accuracy[edit]

Distant observations and calculations were not accurate. Film footage linked in references is from a great distance to one side of the object, perhaps several hundred miles. --Steve D. Gage (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How close did it come in 1997[edit]

What calculations were done as to the 1997 return ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How close to the surface?[edit]

If you look at 48 seconds on this clip, or at 5 seconds on the Wiki video clip, you will see that the meteor passed through that small cloud, pulling a tongue of vapour out with it, just as an aircraft would. This means the meteor was only about 3 km up (say 10,000 ft), and not the 57 km up claimed in the article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBu-yUzWXqg

Tate Tatelyle (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki video clip shows more than the other. It shows the cloud before the meteor emerges; the other deletes that. You can clearly see that there was a feature like a horizontal knife cut in the cloud before the object came out the right side. As to the object pulling a tongue of vapor out, the object is leaving a smoke/vapor trail all across the sky as it travels. It's debatable, but consider the evidence of the military data. If that might have been edited for public consumption, then the video might also have been - and we know the Spanish version was, it was cropped. Government coverups do exist, but not all things are government coverups. Ask yourself, does it really make sense for the government to misreport the altitude of a meteor? The game is to get the truth, even when it's prosaic. Friendly Person (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it makes no sense for the government to misreport the altitude of a meteor, if it was one. If it was a military test flight, then it makes sense. The object came from a direction near Area 51, which was top secret and not known to the public in 1972. Was it a test to hide a flying object in a vapor cone? An ionization cloud created by a fireball is much brighter than a vapor cloud. See Daylight Fireball Elmshorn Video YouTube (from second 26) --Zumthie (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1972 Great Daylight Fireball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Size[edit]

What does "described as a 500 metres (0.50 km)" mean? Is this diameter or what?64.53.191.77 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1972 Great Daylight Fireball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

I was looking to add an image to the german Wikipedia, but according to the information on NASA website, the image used in this article is not public domain but copyright by James M. Baker. Since I am not familiar with American copyright laws, I would like to ask for clarification. Thanks a lot!

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090302.html

Dugf85 (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugf85: Yes, the picture does not appear to be in public domain. I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update?[edit]

The predicted date August 10, 2022 has passed. An update about that prediction would be desirable. Godot (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1972_Great_Daylight_Fireball&oldid=1217868929"