[meteorite-list] New Naklha Dog Evidence

From: MARSROX_at_aol.com <MARSROX_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:49 2004
Message-ID: <113.b408709.297dfa36_at_aol.com>

I'm finding myself reading the original papers acquired from the Smithsonian
in my ongoing efforts to work with Ron and I realized I had forgotten a
couple of things left out of the "M!" feature for brevity's sake. (Although
I've received only a single message against "more dog," if this bores you,
please don't read it -- hit delete.)

1. The "Egyptian Gazette" article quoted in the initial report of Dr. Hume on
the Nakhla fall reads "Readers of the EG will remember that a White Column
was reported by correspondents of the "Al Ahali" as appearing in the sky at
the village of Denshal.....an agriculturalist of Beheira, Mohammed Hakim,
gave the following description,"The fearful column which appeared in the sky
at Denshal was substantial. The terrific noise it emitted was an explosion
which made it erupt in several fragments...one of them fell on a dog in
Denshal, leaving it like ashes in a moment." Mohammed showed the editor of
"Al Ahali" a small piece of the fragments...."

OK, what's new? Not that Mohammed saw a "fearful column" that no one else
saw in Denshal. This discrepancy is reported elsewhere in the literature
after extensive fieldwork by qualified personnel. In fact, when point blank
questioned, local authorities reported "quaking in the atmosphere", BUT NO
COLUMN. I forgot. Wouldn't they have looked up in the direction of the
"quaking?" Of course! You can't overlook the totality of this evidence. The
farmer saw something rare in the sky, BUT HE WASN'T IN DENSHAL when he saw it.

2. "Mohammed showed the editor of "Al Ahali" a small piece of the
fragments...."

Is this what killed/smote/irritated the dog? What OTHER piece of meteorite
would Mohammed have? Wouldn't he pick up the one that killed the dog first?
Would he pick it up second? Not at all? Why didn't Mo claim this was the dog
killer? Did he want it for a souvenir? Or is it because it wasn't the dog
killer because he knew THAT didn't exist?

3. "a small piece"......

Small is small. Not medium. Not large. Small don't kill. No, Mohammed brought
the stone he gave away from the same place he'd traveled from and seen the
smoke.

4. "The terrific noise it emitted was an explosion which made it erupt
several fragments...."

Hume wanted info on this, asked for and received a written response from an
authority in Denshal. "In reply to your telegram, we inform you that.......no
stones fell, as was the case in El Nakhla......."

"No stones" is not Mohammed's "several fragments". "No stones' is not Mo's
"small piece."

5. "Mohammed showed the editor of "Al Ahali" a small piece of the
fragments...."

A footnote attached to the Hume paper, following his attempt to obtain
specimens reads-
"The representatives of the "Al Ahali" newspaper have kindly sent a specimen
of the original fall."

Is this Mohammed's small fragment? In the extensive descriptions of the
roster of Nakhla fragments this one is never assigned an in sitio geographic
location like all of the rest. Is it because its claimed origins were already
considered false?

Ron may attempt to hang his dog bowl on the claims of a farmer who can't
shovel straight, speculations on acts of alleged omission, or even selective
expectations of screwy translation, but in the end the Nakhla fall was one of
the most investigated falls in history and there's no wiggle room. No dog, no
dog killing rocks but a single small fragment produced by the "witness"
that's not even claimed to be the "killer rock" by the "witness". No, Ron,
hangs his dog bowl on the claims of a farmer with visions of smoke in the sky
unseen by others who are looking up to see what the noise is.

As written by Dr. John Ball in his science paper on the topic, "The newspaper
account gave the place of the fall as Denshal, which is about 33 kms. S-E of
El Nakhla, and the day as June 29th. Careful inquiries at Denshal showed that
no meteorites had fallen there, nor had the smoke column be seen. The
statement in the newspaper that one of the stones fell on a dog at Denshal,
"leaving it like ashes in a moment," is doubtless the product of a lively
imagination."

Doubtless.

Kevin Kichinka
Received on Mon 21 Jan 2002 06:11:50 PM PST