PLEASE NOTE:


*
Date sent:        Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:42:45 +0200
To:               cambridge-conference@livjm.ac.uk
From:             Timo Niroma <timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi
Subject:          Is the Earth really getting hotter?

There was a title here on Mon, 13 Oct, that says: "Satellite data fail to
detect global warming".

I have on my WWW page a full story of the temperatures in Helsinki from the
last 170 years and can agree on that conclusion. The single most prominent
explanation comes from the Sun's activity. That was why we had Maunder
minimum, that's, at least partly, the reason for the cold period in the
1810's which culminated in 1815-1816. That's also the lowest period in Sun's
activity smoothed by 11 or 22 years or whatever of this magnitude after at
least 1749. I know that there was a Tambora explosion, but there have been
others not causing this kind of chill. (I don't claim that Tambora would not
have had its share).

And I have a prediction, based on my sunspot theory, that the global
warming, if there is any, will reverse about 2025.

Timo Niroma

http://personal.eunet.fi/tilmari/pp



*
Date sent:        Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:23:09 +0200
To:               cambridge-conference@livjm.ac.uk
From:             Timo Niroma <timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi
Subject:          TWA800 hit by a meteorite?

The TWA800 Flight 17 July 1996 ended in a catastrophic explosion soon after
lift-off from NY. All 230 persons on board were killed. NTSB has since
investigated the case spending tens of million of dollars, but found
nothing. In May they told the press that they have found no evidence
whatsoever for the popular theories of a missile or a bomb. The leftover
"tachnical failure" is also in difficulties.

But one theory there is, and it explains all the oddities - a meteorite. I
suggested it in internet two days after the accident and several times later
on, because every find seems to confirm the only remaining theory more and
more.

There will be in December 1997 a public hearing about this accident. I have
a number of questions to make. I have sent them to vice-president Al Gore,
but don't know if they have received any attention. So I think if anyone
here agrees with me, he/she may use his/her authority for the NTSB to take
the meteorite theory seriously.

By the way, in one of the news on this list of the El Paso bolide, was said
that the local people thought it was a missile exploding.

So it is always, we see what we believe to see (WSWBTS), we don't believe
what we actually see, if it is outside our thought horizon.

And these are my questions:

1. What was the streak in the sky? It can't have been the TWA plane
because the slow motion of the plane seen from afar. It must have
been something that had a speed of tens of km per second. For
example a daylight bolide is seldom identified as such. (Sun was just
setting at the time of the accident.)

2. What does possess enough kinetic energy to pass clean through an
aircraft not leaving any other trace than impact wound (50 cn) and
exit hole (3 meters)?

3. The CWT (Central Wing Tank) has fractured before it caught fire and
exploded not vice versa. How?

4. The first signal of a strike moved through the airframe with a
velocity of 600 m/sec which cannot be achieved by a man-made
explosion (except nuclear one).

5. People faraway heard sonic booms at distances where even the sound of a
plane exploding should not reach them and what is more remarkable at the
same time the plane exploded instead of tens of seconds later. It must have
been something that exploded far more heavily than the plane ever can do and
if heard nearly simultaneously with the plane seen exploding, the sonic
booms (and the felt shock waves!) must have had their origin tens of seconds
before something happened to the plane.

6. FAA radar see just before the catastrophe blips approaching the
plane. Noise? Really? In short of better explanation?

7. The TWA accident happened about 00:31 UT on 18 July. The greatest
fireball observed in 1996 was seen 00:49 UT on 17 July. A great
fireball also occurred 00:09 UT on 21 July.

There is only one causative agent that I can imagine having caused
the accident and that gives an easy explanation to all the questions above -
a meteorite.

This is how Michael Davias from Milford has seen the scenario.

1. The initial impact penetrates the outer fuselage at an angle of
27 degrees in direction NNE. The entry hole is about 50 cm in
diameter.

2. The meteorite enters the main cabin behind row 23.

3. The meteorite punctures the floor of the cabin.

4. The meteorite penetrates the roof of the CWT.

5. The meteorite crushes downward a section of spanwise spar #2.

6. The shockwave causes the fracturing of the CWT through
overpressurization.

7. The tank floor is bended downward fracturing the box keel.

8. This drives off components below the CWT, including an air-
conditioning unit.

9. The meteorite next reaches the center of spanwise beam #3 and
shatters its way through.

10. The meteorite passes through the front wing spar bulkhead into
the lower cabin/cargo hold on the left side of the aircraft. The
power to the aircraft is disrupted causing the CVR tape to stop
recording. The 120 ms voice in the recorder has come through the
fuselage. That "voice" is supersonic. The voice through air never
reaches the CVR tape while it still is recording.

11. Cutting through the aircraft's belly just ahead of the wings,
the meteorite exits the aircraft all this taking 120-130
milliseconds. The exit wound is 3 meter long.

12. The debris caused by this impact are in the debris area #3.

13. The remainder of the plane, the fuselage and the wings intact
the plane continues about 10 seconds.

14. The plane is however mortally wounded. The fuel from the CWT
produces a growing plume of fire and more outer skin is peeled away.

15. Eventually the plane breaks up and the cwt fuel causes an
explosion.

It seems probable that the meteorite that penetrated the TWA plane
was only one of the pieces of a greater meteorite/asteroid that
exploded a few kilometers away from the plane.

The meteorite joins the other meteorites and Michael Davias estimates that
the elliptical strewn field of the meteorites is 5 km south of Westhampton
Beach's eastern-most end.

And in the end, is there any VLF (very lowc frequency) data on the
cockpit and/or the flight recorders caused by the bolide explosion
(2.5-3.5 KHz signal)?

With the help of Michael Davias from Milford, CT and Occam's razor
brought together by

Timo Niroma
00330 Helsinki
Finland



*
Date sent:        Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:33:26 -0400 (EDT)
From:             Benny J Peiser <B.J.PEISER@livjm.ac.uk
Subject:          The 1997 North American Leonid Meteor Watch
To:               cambridge-conference@livjm.ac.uk
Priority:         NORMAL

from: Jim Bedient <wh6ef@pixi.com

-----------------------American Meteor Society, Geneseo, NY
-----------------------NEWS RELEASE
-----------------------October 20, 1997

The 1997 North American Leonid Meteor Watch

James Richardson - AMS Operations Manager
Graceville, Florida
Richardson@digitalexp.com

James Bedient - AMS Electronic Information Coordinator
Honolulu, Hawaii
jamesbed@hcc.hawaii.edu

Since the last Leonid meteor storm in 1966, meteor observers and
scientists have been eagerly awaiting the next approach of Comet
Temple-Tuttle, the parent body of the Leonid meteor stream, in hopes of
witnessing another such event. In March of this year, University of Hawaii
astronomers K. J. Meech, O. R. Hainaut and J. Bauer used the Keck II 10
meter reflector atop Mauna Kea to recover Comet Temple-Tuttle, now headed
toward the inner solar system on its 33-year orbit, and the meteor science
community is gearing up to study the November Leonid maximum.

Though the comet will not reach perihelion until February 28, 1998, the
Leonid meteor stream associated with this comet has already given meteor
observers enhanced displays in 1994, 1995 and 1996.  This year, despite the
bright gibbous moon which will be present, professional and amateur meteor
scientists in North America will be watching closely as the Leonids reach
maximum, predicted for Monday morning, November 17, 1997, at 1335 UTC. This
timing (5:45 am PST) favors visual observers in Western N. America and the
Pacific. In addition to the "classical" peak, which is characteristically
rich in bright, trained meteors, observations from the past two years have
hinted at a newer, fainter concentration of particles occurring a few hours
prior to the normal shower peak.

Professional astronomers in North America will observe the Leonids from
widely separated geographic locations.  From Waterloo, Canada and Edwards
AFB, California, meteor scientists James Jones and Peter Brown (University
of Western Ontario) will be conducting extensive back-scatter radar
observations -- including the testing of a mobile meteor radar. Video
observations from Edwards and an airborne observatory will be coordinated by
Robert Hawkes (Mt. Allison University). Collaborator Ray Russell will be
attempting visual and infrared meteor spectroscopy from the airborne
platform. Peter Jenniskens (NASA / Ames Research Center) and his associates
will be organizing both visual and photographic campaigns at Edwards AFB, in
addition to attempting to make telescopic meteor train observations from
facilities in Chile.  In the Caribbean, John Mathews and David Meisel, along
with a team of other scientists from Cornell, Penn State and SUNY-Geneseo
will be using the Arecibo Radio Telescope in Puerto Rico to sample the faint
component of the Leonid stream using a narrow-beam back-scatter technique.
The Arecibo dish is fortunately situated such that the Leonid radiant will
pass directly through the radar beam very close to the time of predicted
shower maximum.  An array of LIDAR and optical instruments will be
monitoring the Leonids at Arecibo as well.

On the amateur side, the American Meteor Society will coordinate visual
observations from diverse locations as far east as Halifax, Nova Scotia, and
as far west as Oahu, Hawaii.  Using the combined forces of observers from
the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers (ALPO), Meteor Group Hawaii
(MGH), North American Meteor Network (NAMN), New Jersey Astronomical
Association (NJAA), and our regular AMS observers, the Society will cover
nearly a quarter of the northern hemisphere.  The bright waning gibbous moon
will be high in the sky at the time of radiant rise near local midnight, but
Leonid rates should continuously improve through the night as the moon sets
and the radiant rises.  Visual observers are encouraged to utilize a
building or other nearby object to make observations from the moon's shadow.

In addition to visual observations, the three operational stations of
the AMS Radiometeor Project (Florida, California, and Maryland) will
also be collecting forward-scatter data continuously throughout the
Leonid period. Despite the irritating moonlight, all observers are
encouraged to help us to keep a close watch on the Leonids this
November 17th.

For future planning here are the predicted times of greatest Leonid
meteor activity in 1998 and 1999:

1998: Peak date / time, November 17, 1945 UTC
Most favored area: Asia.
Moon phase: New Moon, 28 days

1999: Peak date / time, November 18, 0150 UTC
Most favored areas: Eastern Atlantic, Europe, Africa, Asia.
Moon phase: Waxing Gibbous Moon, 9 days

END



*
Date sent:        Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:16:00 -0400 (EDT)
From:             Benny J Peiser <B.J.PEISER@livjm.ac.uk
Subject:          THE FUTURE OF THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK
To:               cambridge-conference@livjm.ac.uk
Priority:         NORMAL

THE FUTURE OF THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK

RESULTS FROM THE SURVEY
59 list members returned questionnaires

The fast majority of list members which to see a continuation of the
current network format. Whilst a small minority has stated their
interest in a (moderated) discussion group, most members fear that
this would dramatically increase the number of irrelevant (not to
mention ill-mannered) postings. As a result of the survey, the
cambridge-conference network will keep its current format for the
time being. Members interested in setting up a discussion group might
find Philip Herridge's comments attached below of particular help.

Benny J Peiser

------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Do you wish a continuation of the CC-list?   yes (56)  no (  )

2. Do you wish to be removed from the CC-list? yes (3)  no (56)

3. The CC-list is NOT an e-mail discussion group but rather a network
for the dissemination of RELEVANT news, research and scientific
information related to the above mentioned topics.

Do you wish that this policy is maintained? yes (48)  no (8)

If not, what changes would you like to suggest?

4. Should you wish to make any further comments about and suggestions
for the CC-list, please do so below:

============================================================

SOME COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK

============================================================

I find the list very useful as it brings to my desk things I
otherwise wouldn't have time to find.

Mike Baillie, Queen's University Belfast

================

MY ONLY COMMENT WOULD BE TO TRY AND REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL
BEING CIRCULATED; THAT'S DIFFICULT, BUT IF THERE'S TOO MUCH, THEN
PROBABLY NONE OF IT GETS PROPERLY READ!

Mark Bailey, Armagh Observatory

============

I think that in some moments, it is possible to have some discussions
in this e-mail list about some topics related, like the last study
published in 'Antiquity' Vol. 71 no. 273 Sept. 1997, about
Catastrophism 'Broze Age myths? Volcanic activity and human response'

Alfonso Lopez Borgonoz, Spain

==============

It might be interesting to have a separate email list for the
discussion of neocatastrophist topics, particularly those raised by
posting to the Cambridge list. Whether such a list could avoid
degenerating into a free-for-all is difficult to say. I personally
would not want to wade through a barrage of personal attacks as
occurred on the kronia list, for example, nor would I be interested
in seeing significant amounts of pseudo-scientific drivel.

Phil "Pib" Burns, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.  USA

==================

I wouldn't mind having some discussion as well, but I know that
discussions can get out of hand! I would say to people who post stuff
- please keep it short. I would rather have brief summaries (with
location where I can find further details if I want them). But I
found this a very useful list. Thanks for the efforts you put in
towards coordinating it.

David Doff, Trinity College Dublin

================

Keep to what is really interesting or important. Then we'll read
it.

Neil Forsyth, University of Lausanne

==================

The CC-list was a great resource of usefull information and data,
regarding the conference and related subjects. I would like that
this continues. However, recently there were only forwards of
NASA press releases and other info, which is available on other
mailing lists, like NASA press releases mailing list. Since I'm
subscribed to those other mailing lists, I would like to be
removed from CC-list, if this is all, that will be available.
Otherwise, I'd like to stay subscribed and I'm looking forward to
read new, interesting posts.

Kristof Gajsek

===================

I would appreciate to be able to ask questions to the audience of
the CC-list. I would not be against discussion. In case the present
policy is maintained I am still interested to stay on the list.

Bas van Geel, University of Amsterdam

================

Please keep it just the way it is!

John Gribbin, Sussex University

================

It is a great endeavour.

Gunnar Heinsohn, University of Bremen

==============

I would have thought that, if a discussion forum is desired, a more
appropriate system should be investigated, possibilities would
include USENET news groups or something akin to the WWW-based Forum
run by the Starlink Project (see http://rlsaxps.bnsc.rl.ac.uk/Forum).

Philip Herridge, University of Cambridge

============

More discussion - though somehow moderated.

Peter James

==================

I think that the list should be open to questions, which can then
be addressed off list by participants who may be able to provide
answers based on their own research. IE: If I were to ask, "Does
anyone have some interesting observations for the years 1739-40?"
I would expect answers to come to me, not to appear on the list.

Bob Kobres

==============

I commend Dr. Peiser for providing this service to the meteoritics
community. Even if the list is discontinued, as a science journalist
I have appreciated the opportunity to subscribe to the list. Thank
you!

Steve Koppes, University of Georgia, USA

===============

I wonder if some sub-division of topics might be useful -- by regions
of the world, and periods in the past for example? Coding these might
help people to find what they're most interested in quickly. On the
other hand of course this is a global theme and that must be
maintained.

Euan MacKie, Hunterian Museum/University of Glasgow

==================

I'd just reiterate point (3): the only time I've regretted being on
the list is  when it gets hijacked by a handful of bickering
academics banging on about something of no interest to anyone but
them. It reminds me too much of being back at college.

Robert Matthews, Sunday Telegraph

================

The list was excellent just the way it was. These forums tend to
bring out peevish qualities in all of us, which should be vigorously
suppressed by the list monitors.

Dick Meehan, Stanford University

============

It has been fun, and stimulating, even if people got a bit stirred up
at times!  Thank you for doing it!

Eugene Milone,  University of Calgary

===============

Congratulations for keeping the discussion focused but not too
personal.

David Morrison, NASA Ames Research Centre

================

I'm eager for you to continue your splendid CC-list exactly as you
always have.

Bill Mullen, Bard College

===================

I'm very pleased to have access to such a service.

Toby Mundy, Harper Collins

=================

How about setting up a seprate list for discussion? Thanks for
maintaining the current one though!

Paul Parsons - Editor, Modern Astronomer

================

Yes, I would like to continue to receive your 'asteroid/impact'
circulations. Thanks for providing the service.

Margaret Penston, Royal Greenwich Observatory, Cambridge

=================

Extremely interesting subject matter; as a one-time scientist
(graduate study in Andean archaeology) I was very skeptical of
catastrophism, while as an educated layman I am increasingly
convinced of the soundness of its new form. [I tell people now
that we are in an era much like the early 1960's, when new
oceanographic data established plate tectonics as the Grand
Unifying Theory of geology.] Thanks for maintaining this stimulating
discussion!

Steve Weintz



CCCMENU CCC for 1997

The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of

The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of Georgia or the University System of Georgia.