[meteorite-list] will need more AGAIN

From: Michael L Blood <mlblood_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:02:49 -0800
Message-ID: <C2070F49.334D4%mlblood_at_cox.net>

Hi Sterling & All,
        For me, it comes down to whether there is "substantial"
evidence or not regarding a given hammer. ONE of the criteria
I use is: is the actual meteorite available and has it been tested.
However, even this is not an absolute. I do not believe the fall of
NOGATA in 861 A.D. has been tested by a meteorite lab... however,
it is "available" (for viewing on rare occasion). There is no question
it EXISTS.
        Then there is the question of whether or not something man
made or an animal or person was struck. Two highly questionable
"hammers" are Nakhla and Monahans. The former, because Kevin
Kichinka presented evidence almost entirely ruling out the possibility,
yet Ron Baalke presented an elaborate rationale for the POSSIBILITY
that such a dog was struck. The later, was reported to strike a "basketball
court," but it turns out some kids were playing basket ball at the side
of the road when the stone hit a nearby dirt path.
        I include both of these in my hammer offerings, BUT with extensive
explanations of the argument against them. I do not (yet) include either
of them in my personal collection of hammers, but am almost daily tempted
to include Nakhla, due to the outside chance of legitimacy and the "romance"
of the "Nakhla Dog." (Long may he live!)
        The pint is, I do not want to take any chances in passing on as
fact, that which may well be fiction. I especially do not want to sell
any meteoritical material on the basis of such fiction.
        I have long been working on a book about hammers and MAY or may
not include a section on "rumored" falls or unsubstantiated falls. It is
difficult to decide where one wants to "draw the line" in such instances.
        The ol' Oz Dog, Bob Walker, wants me to include "near misses" - but,
at least to date, I will not be pursuing that - but hope he writes such a
book, himself, as that may "push me over the edge" and I will have yet
another group of meteorites that call to me like the sirens of Ulysses.
        Please send prayers for Walter Branch.
        Best wishes, Michael
        


on 2/24/07 10:04 PM, Sterling K. Webb at sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Mark is certainly correct about the hoaxing propensities
> of 19th century (and early 20th century) newspapers. The
> ultimate example is that is the "Great Moon Hoax" of 1832:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax
>
> You will note that Mark's list is of very dramatic accounts.
> OK, the death of a wedding guest has a certain drama, but
> the death of a horse in West Virginia is not the stuff of a real
> blockbuster.
>
> To be sure, we need to be certain. Somebody has to go
> there, get the stone, and do all the scientific dirty work. BUT,
> that does not mean the obverse, that all unverified events are
> untrue, hoaxes, folk tales, urban legends, and the like. SOME
> are; others are not.
>
> When we get back to older historical records, they are most
> often just that: records, official, never made public, internal
> documents, private correspondence, and so forth. Gervase of
> Canterbury's description of a dramatic Lunar impact event
> witnessed on the evening of June 18, 1178, was recorded in
> the "day book" of the monastery and not discovered for many
> centuries; it was not sent immediately to cable TV.
>
> [Currently that event is on the debunking calendar:
> http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news118.html
> but the debunker's arguments are themselves bunk, well,
> that's not the topic here.]
>
> But, in Mark's wonderful collection of newspaper accounts
> of real meteorites that actually fell, one will find lots of bizarre
> "details" that sound "fake." So, if REAL falls produce partially
> unbelievable accounts, why should a reasonably sober account
> be dismissed out of hand?
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "MARK BOSTICK" <thebigcollector at msn.com>
> To: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] ill need more
>
>
> Michael Blood asked:
>
> "However, I was wondering what the NAME of this meteorite is....
> "Zvezvan" is not listed in Meteorites A to Z."
>
> Because newspaper reports are not always correct.
>
> I wouldn't add any of these to your list either Michael.
>
> http://www.meteoritearticles.com/meteorwrongsMT.html
>
> Clear Skies,
> Mark
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

--
You can complain because roses have thorns, or you can rejoice
because thorns have roses.
            - Ziggy - in a comic strip by Tom Wilson
--
  

Received on Sun 25 Feb 2007 01:02:49 PM PST