[meteorite-list] Re: New Naklha Dog Evidence

From: Ron Baalke <baalke_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:49 2004
Message-ID: <200201220724.XAA22452_at_zagami.jpl.nasa.gov>

>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.

There was no fieldwork done at all by any qualified personnel in Denshal, from
where the original report of the Nakhla meteorite came from.

>In fact, when point blank
>questioned, local authorities reported "quaking in the atmosphere"

Actually, the extent of the interrogation of the local authorities was a single
telegram, which was replied to, also by telegram, in a brief one-sentence response.
But that brief response also included these words:

  "the inhabitants of Denshal village heard an explosion resembling a
   clap of thunder, accompanied by a small quaking in the atmosphere".

Why do you doubt that the inhabitants of Denshal and the farmer did not witness the
meteorite fall? It is rather clear they did.

>The farmer saw something rare in the sky.

Yes he did. He had witnessed a meteorite fall.

>BUT HE WASN'T IN DENSHAL when he saw it.

Hmmm. well here's the complete statement by the farmer:

   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 of volcanic materials. These curious fragments, falling to earth
   buried themselves into the sand to the depth of about one metre. One of them
   fell on a dog at Denshal, leaving it like ashes in a moment." Mohammed Eff.
   showed the editor of "Al Ahali" a small piece of the fragments, which were
   described as of a greenish colour, covered with something like shining pitch.

I don't see why you think the farmer wasn't in Denshal. This is a great
eyewitness account of a meteorite fall, along with an accurate description of the
Nakhla meteorite. Why do you think he did not witness the meteorite fall? Why do you insist
the farmer's story was a "the product of a lively imagination"?

>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?

The farmer reporting seeing several fragments, but it did not say which one
was given to the editor. These are excellent questions, and just shows
that the dog story is far from being resolved. It definitely needs further investigation.
Unfortunately, there were no followup interview of the farmer by Hume,
which could have answered a lot of questions.

>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."

Good point. But just because one official didn't see any stones, doesn't mean the farmer
didn't see the stones fall. The same official also reported that "the
inhabitants of Denshal village heard an explosion resembling a clap of thunder,
accompanied by a small quaking in the atmosphere." That alone should have
induced Hume to visit Denshal for further investigation. But he never went
to Denshal. There was no fieldwork done at all by any qualified personnel in Denshal.

>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."

Yes, as I've inquired previously, where is that fragment?

>the end the Nakhla fall was one of
>the most investigated falls in history

Actually, overall was poorly investigated. The main focus of the investigation was
to collect fragments already found by the local populace. Several of the witnesses
were not interviewed, including the the farmer who was the key witness.
The reason why the investigation was poorly done was probably due
in large part to the limited information known of strewn fields back in 1911.
Hume was also apparently inexperienced in meteorite recoveries, as this
was the first witnessed fall in Egypt.

>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.

A lot of information from John Ball was obtained directly from Hume's paper.
The "careful inquiries at Denshal" should have been more than just a
single telegram. There was no fieldwork done at all by any qualified personnel in Denshal.

>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."

And no doubt, the recovery of 10kg of a Mars meteorite is also the product
of a lively imagination. Incidently, John Ball also said these words about the
farmer's story:

  "the meteorite would probably have been lost to science but for
   the action of a farmer, Mohammed Ali Effendi Hakim, who communicated
   a note of the occurence to the Arabic newspaper 'El Ahali'".

Ron Baalke
Received on Tue 22 Jan 2002 02:24:44 AM PST