NEWS: Meteorite reported hitting near Olympia Wash is a hoax

Baked , good looking out. Yeh that would be the same footage.

[Edited on 5-6-2004 by skullone]

[Edited on 5-6-2004 by skullone]

The real story posted on the Seattle paper website indicated the meteor blew up 27 miles up. Given the flash recorded by the videos, I have to believe the rock was larger than a pc monitor and probably A LOT lower than 27 miles!

Originally posted by Banshee
I've clarified the main story a bit, since it seems people are still misinterpreting things.

Well, Banshee, the problem isn't the story.
The problem is the headline, as a number of posters have discussed, which reads:

� NEWS: Meteorite reported hitting near Olympia Wash is a hoax

The problem with this unfortunate choice of wording is
� that if meteorites are found, which,
� judging by various sources, appears will happen,
� that _any_ actual meteorite finds resultant from this event will
� have been pre-emptively declared to be hoaxes.
The core phrase (Subject+Predicate) says it all:
� Meteorite... ...is a hoax

Who are we to believe here?

� - From Associated Press:
�HeraldNet: Meteor may have hit near Snohomish

SEATTLE - A meteor that lighted Western Washington's night sky early Thursday may have landed near Snohomish, a University of Washington scientist says.

The damage is, in any case, already beyond repair.
When one follows a headline in a credible publication,
� expectations should be that the headline reflects accurately the content.
Publications that bait readers with misleading headlines become notorious.

This story is about a hoax attempt on the AP network.
The Subject of the headline might be 'Hoax' or 'Hoaxster'
� or any number of permutations of the storyline.
If you wanted to highlight the rash of coming hoaxes,
� the subject still remains hoaxes or hoaxers or gullible media types,
� unless the story is about the props and methodology of hoaxes.
The story is _not_ about a meteorite.

Those respected folk out there searching for the remnants of this event
� do not need to be painted as being parties to a hoax,
� which is the net effect of the headline.
Those of us involved in the sciences take a dim view of media which,
� by implication or imputation, associates science and its pursuit as hoax.

Could we extrapolate from this that urgent priorities exist
� using headlines to guide readership thinking toward certain biases?
To color discussion and examination of anomalous events as
� most probable hoaxes, to color researchers as being gullible hoaxed?

No, surely not... ...or, perhaps, hopefully not?