[meteorite-list] Fwd: Looking for Closure

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

From: MeteorHntr_at_aol.com <MeteorHntr_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:50 2004
Message-ID: <164.79835db.2980601f_at_aol.com>

--part1_164.79835db.2980601f_boundary
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_164.79835db.2980601f_alt_boundary"

--part1_164.79835db.2980601f_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

List,

No doubt, due to some huge conspiracy, Kevin Kichinka has repeatedly tried to
get the email below to post to the Meteorite list, but it hasn't arrived. So
he has asked me to forward this on to the list at large.

Please reply to the list or to Kevin directly at Marsrx_at_aol.com.

Steve

In a message dated 1/23/02 12:40:38 PM Central Standard Time, MARSROX writes:

>
> Subj: Fwd: Looking for Closure
> Date: 1/23/02 12:18:00 PM Central Standard Time
> From: MARSROX
> To: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>
>
>
>
> -----------------
> Forwarded Message:
> Subj: Looking for Closure
> Date: 1/23/02 11:24:52 AM Central Standard Time
> From: MARSROX
> To: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.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
>

--part1_164.79835db.2980601f_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>List,
 
 No doubt, due to some huge conspiracy, Kevin Kichinka has repeatedly tried to get the email below to post to the Meteorite list, but it hasn't arrived.  So he has asked me to forward this on to the list at large.
 
 Please reply to the list or to Kevin directly at Marsrx_at_aol.com.
 
 Steve
 
 In a message dated 1/23/02 12:40:38 PM Central Standard Time, MARSROX writes:
 
 
 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
 Subj: Fwd: Looking for Closure
 Date: 1/23/02 12:18:00 PM Central Standard Time
 From: MARSROX
 To: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
 
 
 
 
 -----------------
 Forwarded Message:
 Subj: Looking for Closure
 Date: 1/23/02 11:24:52 AM Central Standard Time
 From: MARSROX
 To: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.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
 </BLOCKQUOTE>
 
 
 </HTML>

--part1_164.79835db.2980601f_alt_boundary--

--part1_164.79835db.2980601f_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: <MARSROX_at_aol.com>
From: MARSROX_at_aol.com
Full-name: MARSROX
Message-ID: <171.79e2502.29805da6_at_aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:40:38 EST
Subject: Fwd: Looking for Closure
To: MeteorHntr_at_aol.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part2_164.79835db.29805da6_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 139

--part2_164.79835db.29805da6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--part2_164.79835db.29805da6_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: <MARSROX_at_aol.com>
From: MARSROX_at_aol.com
Full-name: MARSROX
Message-ID: <12a.b0a03cd.29805858_at_aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:18:00 EST
Subject: Fwd: Looking for Closure
To: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part3_164.79835db.29805858_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 139

--part3_164.79835db.29805858_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--part3_164.79835db.29805858_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: <MARSROX_at_aol.com>
From: MARSROX_at_aol.com
Full-name: MARSROX
Message-ID: <59.165f7a3d.29804be4_at_aol.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:24:52 EST
Subject: Looking for Closure
To: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 139

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

--part3_164.79835db.29805858_boundary--

--part2_164.79835db.29805da6_boundary--

--part1_164.79835db.2980601f_boundary--
Received on Wed 23 Jan 2002 01:51:11 PM PST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: drtanuki: "[meteorite-list] Books wanted"
Previous message: Matteo Chinellato: "[meteorite-list] Farmington for sale"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

StumbleUpon

del.icio.us

Yahoo MyWeb