I was quite serious this time. I think this one rings true.
The problem with it all is that the story doesn’t add up. Yes, it could be a meteorite. But nothing matches up to it being a meteorite that fell, hit the boy, and then made the crater.
For one thing, there’s the meteor and the crater. That little meteor looks to weigh only a few grams. For it to have made a crater the size reported in hard pavement, it would have had to be moving at absolutely incredible speed. With that sort of kinetic energy, it would have sent shrapnel flying all over and done a good bit of damage. Plus there wouldn’t have been anything left of the meteor. At regular meteorite speeds, it would have needed to be a much larger object (baseball sized, perhaps? I don’t really know enough about the things to make a good estimate other than “larger”), in which case there would be bits and pieces of the meteor all over the street there. So why is there only mention of the one little scrap? Plus a large one wouldn’t have made just a little narrow burn on his hand.
Then there’s the injury. It doesn’t fit the scenario. For one thing, it’s being reported as a “10 centimeter burn”. If that injury in the photo is 10 centimeters, then that kid must have giant hands. So it seems that the reports may be a bit sloppy in their fact-gathering. But aside from that, such an injury isn’t consistent with any known past meteorite strike. A woman in Sylacauga, Alabama was hit by a meteorite the size of a coconut. It left bruises, not burns, nor did it burn anything else around it. Other probable cases didn’t involve burns, either. When the Benld meteorite hit a car, it lodged itself into the car’s seat. But it didn’t burn it at all.
Nor does that injury look quite right for a grazing injury.
There’s not even been any confirmation that there was an actual meteorite found, or anything else like that.
So what makes you think it is all true?