[meteorite-list] Looking for Closure

From: MARSROX_at_aol.com <MARSROX_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:50 2004
Message-ID: <59.165f7a3d.29804be4_at_aol.com>

For me, all this debate really is about is my desire for Ron to make the NASA
website he administrates reflect what is known about Nakhla and the dog. I'm
offering here a positive idea to team with Ron to achieve that end. I hope he
accepts it and we bring desired closure to this issue for him, myself and the
m-list.

Yesterday, we received a message from Ron with this information -
- "my main point is that the Nakhla dog story CANNOT be discounted, but the
story CANNOT BE CONFIRMED either."

I've never seen such a statement in a science text. Technically, it's false,
and on principle it's meaningless.

A definition of "discounted" is "to reduce in value."

If Ron believes that though no one, not even the farmer, produced a dog
corpse and that "doesn't discount the story";

If Ron believes that though no on produced a dog-killing rock that this
"doesn't discount the story";

If Ron believes that the farmer claiming to have a seen, but not collected
falling rocks 33 km from the 5 km strewn field "doesn't discount of the
story";

If Ron doesn't believe that the only witness claiming that the event happened
had the day wrong doesn't "discount the story";

If Ron doesn't believe that a meteorite cloud seen by only one person while
the rest of the village was looking up at the sky to see what was exploding
doesn't "discount the story";

If Ron believes that the farmer who saw rocks fall from the sky that no one
else saw falling although they were looking up to see what was exploding in
the sky "doesn't discount the story";

If Ron can read the quote from a Ph.D. investigating the event that says "the
statement in the newspaper that one of the stones fell on a dog is doubtless
the product of a lively imagination" and still feel that this "doesn't
discount the story."

Then nothing ever will.

Ron has asked me to team up with him. I agreed and asked whatever we could do
together. I like to think that his comment "it would be interesting to find
the 1911 paper" was a positive gesture.

I propose that we team up to improve the Nakhla page on the NASA website he
administers, a website that the whole world references as the "ground truth."

Everything on the page up to the following sentence is accurate and
acceptable. The one sentence that can be improved reads-

"However, there is some evidence that there some (sic) truth to the story the
dog story cannot be discounted at this point."

We have clearly discounted it above, so that part of the statement needs
retooling.

Can we agree on and exchange the single above sentence for-

"A farmer reported an incident of a dog "being left like ashes in the moment"
by a falling meteorite, but this cannot be confirmed."

Ron's statement at the top of this page concludes that "the story cannot be
confirmed", so I'm sure that is acceptable to him.

I would be pleased if Ron would accept my offer and team together with me to
make this positive change. Perhaps then Ron and I (and the m-list) can have
"closure" on this issue.

Kevin Kichinka
Received on Wed 23 Jan 2002 12:24:52 PM PST