[meteorite-list] Re: New Naklha Dog Evidence

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

From: Greg Redfern <gredfern_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:52 2004
Message-ID: <NBBBJPGEPBMHMOJGKPFFKEFFCDAA.gredfern_at_earthlink.net>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C1A697.48076040
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Ron and List,

 Are there other threads out there that any one knows of on the
3-10-1897 story in the NY Times? Meteorite fragments in walls, a dead
horse, a city of some size, a man knocked unconscious but no recoveries -
seems pretty amazing.

GR

.-----Original Message-----
From: meteorite-list-admin_at_meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-admin_at_meteoritecentral.com]On Behalf Of Sterling K.
Webb
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 3:04 PM
To: Ron Baalke
Cc: Meteorite Mailing List
Subject: [meteorite-list] Re: New Naklha Dog Evidence

 Hi, Ron and List,
 No ballistic experts (or even gun nuts) came forward to answer my
question about how fast a meteoritic fragment would have to traveling to
penetrate a meter in loose sand. Reduced to just guessing, I would say it
would have to be hypersonic (like a rifle bullet). Hume's report of 30
centimeter penetration at El Nakhla could be reconciled if the soil there
were more compact (like clay).
 One of the accounts quoted somewhere in this long thread says the dog
was "turned to ashes in an instant." It seems to me that the more likely
result of an hypersonic impact on a dog would be a wide and uniform
distribution of dogburger! I suspect that the observation of "ashes" was
created by a witness to match his interpretation of the event as "fire from
Heaven."
 The value of eyewitness testimony is greatly reduced by the fact that
the human brain re-writes its immediate sense memory to better conform with
its later interpretation of the events witnessed. A classic witness
experiment was to have a classroom of students "witness" (without advance
warning) a mock robbery in which the robber brandished a bright yellow
banana while demanding money. The "witnesses" all reported he had a gun or a
"dark object" in his hand; no one reported a robber armed with ripe fruit.
 In the case of observations of natural phenomena, a good example is
historic descriptions of lightening. From the earliest times up to around
1800 AD, lightening was always described (one exception), where color is
mentioned, as "red," or "red-orange." This holds true for all cultures:
ancient Hindu scripture, Babylonian tablets, the ancient Greeks, Romans,
Middle Ages... In a search yielding over 400 descriptions or references to
lightening before 1800, I found only one (from Russia c. 1050 AD) that
called lightening "blue, blue-white, or white."
 Why "red" lightening? Because "everyone knows" that lightening is
"fire" and fire is red. After the discovery that lightening is an electrical
discharge (Franklin), descriptions of lightening in literature mutate over 2
to 5 decades to the more correct "blue, blue-white, white" description tags.
Does this mean that we are now "better" witnesses? No, it only means that
the learned interpretation that we impose on our sense impressions is more
accurate. The editing mechanism remains the same for most observers.
 An observation of "red" or "orange" lightening is possible at a
distance in an atmosphere dirty or dusty enough to produce strong
scattering. Ironically, nowadays, there are those who will argue that red
lightening is impossible because "everyone knows" that lightening is blue or
white!
 So, in interpreting "eyewitness" evidence, we have to deal with a
situation in which some witnesses may be accurate while it is likely that
most are not, without knowing which is which. The only solution (where there
is enough evidence) is to sift all through a logic sieve as best we can. In
the case of the dog, more evidence would help (unlikely as we are to get
it).
 For those who have a high stake in the animals-killed-by-meteorite
question, specifically, the question of whether it is possible or if there
are well-attested accounts, look up The New York Times for March 11, 1897. I
quote:

 Parkersburg, West Virginia. March 10, 1897. A meteor burst over the town
of New Martinsville yesterday. The noise of the explosion resembled that of
a heavy artillery salute... When the meteor exploded, the fragments flew in
all directions, like a volcanic upheaval, and solid walls were pierced by
the fragments. David Leisure was knocked down by the force of the air caused
by the rapidity with which the body passed before it broke. The blow
rendered him unconscious. One horse had its head crushed and nearly torn
from the trunk by a fragment of the meteor, and another horse in the next
stall was discovered to be stone-deaf.
 I would call that a reasonably consistent and probably accurate
account of an animal death by meteorite. There are no details in this report
that I would quarrel with as unlikely or invented or too imaginative to be
true. And The New York Times does have a pretty good reputation for a
journalistic yellow rag!

 Sterling K. Webb
 --------------------------------------------
 Ron Baalke wrote:

>
> The quote describing the circumstances of the fall contains a
datum which is testable and
> could yield information:
>
> "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."
>
> Someone somewhere with more specific engineering experience ought
to be able to tell us
> what velocity is necessary to drive a small rock fragment one meter
deep in sand. More
> velocity, I would assume, than would be necessary to drive a bullet a
meter deep in sand, since
> a bullet is shaped to penetrate and a meteorite isn't.
> Are there any ballistics experts among us who could tell us what
size (and speed) of bullet
> penetrates a meter in loose sand?
 You bring up a good point. It turns out a similar report about
meteorites
 penetrating to a 1 meter depth came also from El Nakhla:

 "this explosion was followed by vapour and a fall of black
stones...
 which penetrated the earth to a depth of a metre"

 While I had pointed out that William Hume did not do any fieldwork in
Denshal, he did
 do excellent job of documentation of the meteorites found in El Nakhla.
It turns
 out no meteorite in El Nakhla penetrated any deeper than 30 cm into the
ground.
 So, why the discrepancy? Do we just discount the account entirely, and
attribute
 this as a product of a lively imagination? Or do we just allow for a
little leeway
 in some of the accounts, as it is obvious they did witness the meteorite
fall.
 I'd say the latter.

 Ron Baalke

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C1A697.48076040
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Hi Ron=20
and List,</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D680300722-26012002> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D680300722-26012002>     Are there other =
threads out=20
there that any one knows of on the 3-10-1897 story in the NY =
Times?  =20
Meteorite fragments in walls, a dead horse, a city of some size, a man =
knocked=20
unconscious but no recoveries - seems pretty =
amazing.</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D680300722-26012002> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D680300722-26012002>GR </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D680300722-26012002> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D680300722-26012002> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D680300722-26012002>.-----Original=20
Message----- From: meteorite-list-admin_at_meteoritecentral.com=20
[mailto:meteorite-list-admin_at_meteoritecentral.com]On Behalf Of =
Sterling=20
K. Webb Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 3:04 PM To: =
Ron=20
Baalke Cc: Meteorite Mailing List Subject: =
[meteorite-list]=20
Re: New Naklha Dog Evidence </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Hi, Ron and List,=20
     No ballistic experts (or even gun nuts) came =
forward to=20
 answer my question about how fast a meteoritic fragment would have to=20
 traveling to penetrate a meter in loose sand. Reduced to just =
guessing, I=20
 would say it would have to be hypersonic (like a rifle bullet). Hume's =
report=20
 of 30 centimeter penetration at El Nakhla could be reconciled if the =
soil=20
 there were more compact (like clay).     One of the =

 accounts quoted somewhere in this long thread says the dog was "turned =
to=20
 ashes in an instant." It seems to me that the more likely result of an =

 hypersonic impact on a dog would be a wide and uniform distribution of =

 dogburger! I suspect that the observation of "ashes" was created by a =
witness=20
 to match his interpretation of the event as "fire from Heaven."=20
     The value of eyewitness testimony is greatly =
reduced by=20
 the fact that the human brain re-writes its immediate sense memory to =
better=20
 conform with its later interpretation of the events witnessed. A =
classic=20
 witness experiment was to have a classroom of students "witness" =
(without=20
 advance warning) a mock robbery in which the robber brandished a =
bright yellow=20
 banana while demanding money. The "witnesses" all reported he had a =
gun or a=20
 "dark object" in his hand; no one reported a robber armed with ripe =
fruit.=20
     In the case of observations of natural =
phenomena, a=20
 good example is historic descriptions of lightening. From the earliest =
times=20
 up to around 1800 AD, lightening was always described (one exception), =
where=20
 color is mentioned, as "red," or "red-orange." This holds true for all =

 cultures: ancient Hindu scripture, Babylonian tablets, the ancient =
Greeks,=20
 Romans, Middle Ages... In a search yielding over 400 descriptions or=20
 references to lightening before 1800, I found only one (from Russia c. =
1050=20
 AD) that called lightening "blue, blue-white, or white."=20
     Why "red" lightening? Because "everyone knows" =
that=20
 lightening is "fire" and fire is red. After the discovery that =
lightening is=20
 an electrical discharge (Franklin), descriptions of lightening in =
literature=20
 mutate over 2 to 5 decades to the more correct "blue, blue-white, =
white"=20
 description tags. Does this mean that we are now "better" witnesses? =
No, it=20
 only means that the learned interpretation that we impose on our sense =

 impressions is more accurate. The editing mechanism remains the same =
for most=20
 observers.     An observation of "red" or "orange"=20
 lightening is possible at a distance in an atmosphere dirty or dusty =
enough to=20
 produce strong scattering. Ironically, nowadays, there are those who =
will=20
 argue that red lightening is impossible because "everyone knows" that=20
 lightening is blue or white!     So, in =
interpreting=20
 "eyewitness" evidence, we have to deal with a situation in which some=20
 witnesses may be accurate while it is likely that most =
are not,=20
 without knowing which is which. The only solution (where there is =
enough=20
 evidence) is to sift all through a logic sieve as best we can. In the =
case of=20
 the dog, more evidence would help (unlikely as we are to get it).=20
     For those who have a high stake in the=20
 animals-killed-by-meteorite question, specifically, the question of =
whether it=20
 is possible or if there are well-attested accounts, look up The New =
York=20
 Times for March 11, 1897. I quote:=20
 <BLOCKQUOTE>Parkersburg, West Virginia. March 10, 1897. A meteor burst =
over=20
 the town of New Martinsville yesterday. The noise of the explosion =
resembled=20
 that of a heavy artillery salute... When the meteor exploded, the =
fragments=20
 flew in all directions, like a volcanic upheaval, and solid walls =
were=20
 pierced by the fragments. David Leisure was knocked down by the =
force of the=20
 air caused by the rapidity with which the body passed before it =
broke. The=20
 blow rendered him unconscious. One horse had its head crushed and =
nearly=20
 torn from the trunk by a fragment of the meteor, and another horse =
in the=20
 next stall was discovered to be =
stone-deaf.</BLOCKQUOTE>    I=20
 would call that a reasonably consistent and probably accurate account =
of an=20
 animal death by meteorite. There are no details in this report that I =
would=20
 quarrel with as unlikely or invented or too imaginative to be true. =
And The=20
 New York Times does have a pretty good reputation for a =
journalistic=20
 yellow rag!  =20
 Sterling K. Webb -------------------------------------------- =
 Ron=20
 Baalke wrote:=20
 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3D"CITE">> >     The =
quote=20
 describing the circumstances of the fall contains a datum which is =
testable=20
 and > could yield information: >=20
 >      "The fearful column which =
appeared in=20
 the sky at Denshal >      was =
substantial.=20
 The terrific noise it emitted was an =
 >     =20
 explosion which made it erupt in several fragments of=20
 >      volcanic materials. These =
curious=20
 fragments, falling to earth >      =
buried=20
 themselves into the sand to the depth of about one metre." >=20
 >     Someone somewhere with more =
specific=20
 engineering experience ought to be able to tell us > what =
velocity is=20
 necessary to drive a small rock fragment one meter deep in sand. =
More=20
 > velocity, I would assume, than would be necessary to drive =
a bullet=20
 a meter deep in sand, since > a bullet is shaped to penetrate =
and a=20
 meteorite isn't. >     Are there any =
ballistics=20
 experts among us who could tell us what size (and speed) of bullet =
 >=20
 penetrates a meter in loose sand?=20
 You bring up a good point. It turns out a similar report about =
meteorites=20
 penetrating to a 1 meter depth came also from El Nakhla:=20
        "this explosion was followed =
by=20
 vapour and a fall of black stones...=20
         which penetrated the =
earth to=20
 a depth of a metre"=20
 While I had pointed out that William Hume did not do any =
fieldwork in=20
 Denshal, he did do excellent job of documentation of the =
meteorites=20
 found in El Nakhla.   It turns out no meteorite in El =
Nakhla=20
 penetrated any deeper than 30 cm into the ground. So, why the=20
 discrepancy? Do we just discount the account entirely, and attribute =

 this as a product of a lively imagination? Or do we just allow =
for a=20
 little leeway in some of the accounts, as it is obvious they did =
witness=20
 the meteorite fall. I'd say the latter.=20
 Ron Baalke  </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C1A697.48076040--
Received on Sat 26 Jan 2002 06:28:41 PM PST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Dan Wray: "[meteorite-list] change email?"
Previous message: Rann: "[meteorite-list] change email?"
In reply to: Sterling K. Webb: "[meteorite-list] Re: New Naklha Dog Evidence"

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