Which meteor TV programme did you find the most informative?

[sologuitarist61]

Having just watched the two programmes from last night I was windering which you found the more informative or the most enjoyable to watch?

I have always believed that the BBC are hard to beat in such things but having watched the two I have decided the the Channel 4 documentary was the better one.

Any thoughts?

[sparkyjon]

well unfortunately due to disturbances i only got about half way through the channel 4 one and from what i have seen it was brilliant , loads of video footage and some of that was mental , especially the garage roller doors blowing in wow , just goes to show how powerful it was..

i'm yet to see the BBC's version, although my personal opinion of BBC isnt the highest at present anyway so it might taint my opinion..

[Black Knight]

I think the C4 show edges out the one from the Beeb quite easily actually. Prof Ian Stewart fronts some good shows, but this was basically a compilation of bits from his previous shows with some glue to hold it all together.

Edit: can't spell.

[Stargazer51N]

I thought they were both very good. Interesting that there is so much footage due to all the dash mounted cameras in Russian cars - maybe we'll see other similar events around the world captured this way in the future as cameras become more popular. I found the amount of energy that was released by the meteor astounding and that the level of damage could have been so much worse. The confusion caused by the shock wave damage must have been pretty frightening.

[drummermandan02]

Got them both to watch yet, but will post my comments after watching them

[DaveS]

I thought the CH.4 one was more informative about this particular impact but that Horizon put it into context, even if a lot was rehashed.

Didn't think much of the narration with it's {pause} portentionous {pause} pauses. Scripted by a devotee of Harold Pinter.

[Black Knight]

Scripted by a devotee of Harold Pinter.

Hehehe!

[MacRoy]

I watched them both and find it hard to decide, perhaps the C4 one had more science in C4. Anyway, they were both fascinating and amazing that they could come up with programs so fast. Thank goodness it was an air burst and not a strike. What damage would have been done otherwise. It also made me think that the old USSR might have been mighty tempted to get a few ICBMs off. Thinking on, what if it had been North Korea. God help us with that nutter Kim Jong-Il at the helm in that scenario.

[harpic]

I sort of watched both, fell asleep during the beebs. There's your answer I suppose.

[sparkyjon]

managed to watch both c4 hands down , much more entertaining and the guy doing the BBC no offense but he had such a boring voice.. it wouldnt surprise me if someone in the BBC thought it's science we need a boring voice.

[Double Kick Drum]

Only seen the beeb's show with Iain Stewart. If the C4 programme was better, I llok forward to catching it later.

[Black Knight]

I think Iain Stewart is fine enough as a presenter. I just think the C4 show more closely matched what I wanted to see from a show about the Russian meteor.

[DaveS]

I much prefered having a show presented by someone (Prof Iain Stewart) who actually knows what he's talking about rather than just reading a script.

Although there was more specific info about the Russian impact there was also an awful lot of repetition.

If that thing *had* been an iron and had come in more verticaly we wouldn't have been talking 1000 injuries, but 10,000 (Or more) deaths.

[sologuitarist61]

I think Iain Stewart is fine enough as a presenter. I just think the C4 show more closely matched what I wanted to see from a show about the Russian meteor.

Couldn't agree more, it was what I wanted to see, very good. Can't agree about Iain Stewart though, his voice really hits a bad nerve in me - sorry Iain!