[meteorite-list] Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor?

From: Chris Peterson <clp_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:29:04 -0600
Message-ID: <009901c89376$44eaed50$0a01a8c0_at_bellatrix>

Any one of these individual components seems to lie on a spectrum
between possible and plausible. But you string them all together, and
the likelihood that the theory is correct seems extremely slim.

And I'd have to say that the notion you could utilize an ancient
(visual) observer's records, scratched in clay, of an object still in
space, to determine an atmospheric meteor path with any reasonable
accuracy, is beyond belief. We'd be hard pressed to do that now, with
instrumental data collected over several days or longer before impact.
Knowing a short term movement to "within one degree" with respect to
reference stars certainly isn't good enough for that.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "McCartney Taylor" <mccartney at blackbearddata.com>
To: "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:33 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor?


>I don't agree with most of these conclusions. I motion to have this
> work peer reviewed by meteoriticists. Do I hear a second?
>
> -mt
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/uob-cct033108.php
Received on Mon 31 Mar 2008 05:29:04 PM PDT