[meteorite-list] Ron's re-post

From: impactearth_at_space.com <impactearth_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:52:09 2004
Message-ID: <20020809111722.5327.h009.c000.wm_at_mail.space.com.criticalpath.net>

This whole topic has been worn out over a year ago or
so. Ron reposted what he did because there is nothing
left to be said. Its all been said, all theories
explained, opinions expressed, manly challenges, and
catchy phrases like "put up or shut up". Nothing has
changed, nothing will change. People are intitled to
believe what they want. I wish my biggest worry, and
passion in life, was if the nakhla dog story was true
or not.





MARSROX_at_aol.com wrote:

>
> 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 &quot;old message&quot;.
>
> Ron has re-posted his &quot;theory&quot; of the dog
with it's
> &quot;woulda, shouda, coulda
> fuzzy logic&quot; with the closing plea that he has
&quot;asked
> me to work together
> with him on this, but Kevin have refused&quot;.
>
> 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 &quot;didn't prove that the
dog
> didn't exist&quot;, as you
> claim (many, many folks have mentioned that in formal
> debate, it's impossible
> to &quot;prove a double negative&quot;). 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 &quot;theories&quot; must be consistant with
your &quot;wait for
> the Egyptian
> newspaper&quot; idea, right?
>
> One astute list member said of the dog story,
> &quot;Extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary proof.&quot;
>
> You have no scientific proof that a dog ever existed -
> extraordinary or even
> ordinary. You have a &quot;personal belief&quot;.
>
> Maybe you should start a cult........
>
> Kevin Kichinka
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> <a
href="http://mail.space.com//jump/http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list">http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list</a>

___________________________________________________________________
Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.
Received on Fri 09 Aug 2002 02:17:19 PM PDT