[meteorite-list] Ron's re-post

From: MARSROX_at_aol.com <MARSROX_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:52:09 2004
Message-ID: <180.bc02410.2a8544ec_at_aol.com>

There's nothing inherently wrong with re-posting a message, even one from a
year or two ago, although it would be courteous to at least tell the
l-members that it's an "old message".

Ron has re-posted his "theory" of the dog with it's "woulda, shouda, coulda
fuzzy logic" with the closing plea that he has "asked me to work together
with him on this, but Kevin have refused".

I'm not going to respond again to messages Ron sent years ago, all of those
responses can be located in the archives.

Apparently it's too much to ask that Ron at least make his re-post current.
Ron and I did work together for about a month last year and ultimately he
changed the NASA website, often cited by Reuters/AP etc. as space gospel to
reflect the reality.

Perhaps Ron can find volunteers right here on the list to pursue his the dead
dog theories. Reading about their progress would be interesting.

My work is done, Ron, I "didn't prove that the dog didn't exist", as you
claim (many, many folks have mentioned that in formal debate, it's impossible
to "prove a double negative"). I stated the substantial facts and conclusions
found in the literature. No opinions, suppositions or daydreams were added.
The facts and conclusions offered dictate that there's no dog.

If you want to prove the dog existed, you'll have to do better than blame
translators for incompetance and slander the efforts of dead researchers.

According to your way-of-thinking, we don't know with 100% certainty that the
Sojourner is dead on Mars. We're just waiting for the batteries to charge. We
don't know with 100% certainty Emilia Erhardt (sp.) isn't carving coconuts
for beer-money. We can't close the book on Ted Williams home run records
because he might come back from the dead and play for the Tampa Bay Devil
Rays.

Those "theories" must be consistant with your "wait for the Egyptian
newspaper" idea, right?

One astute list member said of the dog story, "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof."

You have no scientific proof that a dog ever existed - extraordinary or even
ordinary. You have a "personal belief".

Maybe you should start a cult........

Kevin Kichinka
Received on Fri 09 Aug 2002 12:16:44 PM PDT