[meteorite-list] Fw: I've got time for this - I've voted
From: bernd.pauli_at_paulinet.de <bernd.pauli_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed Nov 3 02:40:57 2004
Kevin still seems to be unable to post anything to the
meteorite list and he requested I forward these lines:
Ron, Michael, Mark, Rob and distinguished list members:
Rob Wesel wrote an entertaining story of the mutt in the hut. He oughta know,
Michael has made an excellent suggestion re: Nakhla Dog, and I too, invite members
to look in the archives in 2000 for the scholarly and entertaining discussions Ron and
I offered. Because we have parried over this at least twice, and since I have published
my findings without a published rebuttal from Ron (or anyone else) I consider the case
closed. If Ron would like to write facts proving a dog existed, dead or alive, something
that an editor of a science publication would support, and not extrapolations, conjectures
and speculations disguised as evidence, I would welcome this.
Ron has admitted that his motives for keeping the story alive are personal. I respect that.
I will be offering new theories suggesting psychological motivations of persons behind the
origins of this legend in my new book "The Art of Collecting Meteorites," now finished and
due out early in 2005. Unlike Ron's wild and unscientific speculations, these theories are
based on facts. I think you will find them very interesting, as I believe I have solved the mystery
behind the story.
Back to today's discussion. From the beginning, I have presented evidence, or the lack of, for
a dog dead or alive. The hard evidence for a dog struck/killed/ashed doesn't exist. No dog
body was shown to anyone, although correspondents of the paper were in Denshal, presumably
with cameras, but certainly with two eyes per correspondent. They report nothing. Showing a
meteorite to a person, even if it is a small fragment of Nakhla, is not evidence of a dead dog. It's
evidence of a small meteorite. Could it have been carried from elsewhere? The farmer didn't even
get the day of the fall correct.
I remind all that I am only trying to present science using scientific methodology to ascertain facts.
If anyone would like to discuss this further, I will entertain your questions, if you will send them to me directly.
And if you want to challenge the findings, at least get your facts straight.
My friend Mark writes - "The bolide passed over Denshal". No it didn't. "Careful inquiries at Denshal showed that no meteorites had fallen there, nor had the smoke column been seen." Denshal is beyond
Mark also writes - "The farmer gave the editor a meteorite." No he didn't. "Mohammed Eff. showed the editor of the Al Ahali a small piece of the fragments...."
And to Ron - Every argument you again have presented was refuted four years ago. You continue to confuse coulda/woulda/shoulda with evidence.
More important for Ron to explain, is his claim that I agreed with the wording regarding the dog on the website he administers for JPL/NASA.
We discussed many times the wording for this description, treated as Gospel by the media and public, and finally agreed on words which he placed on the site. A short time later I discovered he had added another sentence I had vigorously and repeatedly rejected for being bad grammar as well as illogical - "though the story hasn't been disproved, either." Thanks, Ron. And can someone please inform Ron
that it is illogical to claim something happened "because you can't disprove it"?
I can't disprove that the farmer or anyone else didn't see a smoke trail in Denshal although that is past
the end point of the trajectory by some 30 km. Maybe the meteorite did a U-Turn in the sky. I can't disprove this, so I guess we all must believe it is possible.
And let me clear up Ron's interpretation of Monica's description of Nakhla in the Cat of Mets 2000.
Look at the last edition of the Cat edited by Hutchison. It reads - "One of the stones killed a dog."
Monica didn't "disagree with my "opinions", Ron. On page 356, the "dog story" she published in the Catalogue reads, "One of the stones reputedly killed a dog." Pretty short story. And changed from
"one of the stones killed a dog."
Reputed means, "Generally considered, assumed, or supposed."
I suppose not. And when you assume something...
The list of people who no longer believe there was a dog is far longer than the shadow of doubt
that Ron would like to project.
I can only hope that his memory of recent events improves.
All good men may believe as they wish, but belief is different than observation.
Now I'll let dead dogs lie,
Received on Wed 03 Nov 2004 02:40:55 AM PST