[meteorite-list] Expert rejects meteor claim

From: Paul H. <oxytropidoceras_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 7:33:56 -0500
Message-ID: <20120820083356.P7ZGF.1324409.imail_at_eastrmwml301>

In "[meteorite-list] Expert rejects meteor claim" at
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2012-August/086697.html
Scott Schulz wrote:

"On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Tom Randall wrote:
I guess it didn't go through this morning for some reason.
Try #2! http://bit.ly/S7yPky "

The article, to which Tom refers is:

Expert rejects meteor claim Rocks don't look like real thing
by Robin Booker, Winnipeg Free Press, August 18, 2012
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/expert-rejects-meteor-claim-166629256.html

Scott added:

"She's just not having much luck with anyone.
Interesting to see an article like that in a paper though :)"

Having an article that follows up a sensation claim of
this type with negative news that the claim likely is
completely bogus is quite unusual and atypical of my
experiences with news media. Like meteorwrongs
being reported as meteorites, news writers are forever
reporting some sensational archaeological find, i.e.
"Atlantis" being found seemingly for the hundredth
time on the flimsiest of evidence and without checking
with any experts. Unfortunately, when problems are
pointed out by experts with such a claim later in the
news cycle, the reporter(s) and whatever paper
published the initial report have either moved on to
other news; consider negative findings of the bogus
claims boring; or both and the negative findings are
never reported. Thus, I personally commend reporter
Robin Booker and the Winnipeg Free Press for
following up on the initial story with an article
about Scott Young's expert opinion.

Best wishes,

Paul H.
Received on Mon 20 Aug 2012 08:33:56 AM PDT