--- Begin Message ---
In 1998 I had a two-part article on Nakhla published in "Meteorite". Last
year, I had a two-part article on Chassigny published in "Meteorite."
In either case, I spent literally hundreds of hours locating papers written
immediately following the falls, some provided by the Ssmithsonian,
cross-checking facts and putting together something that an ordinary person
with just a little background and interest in meteoritics could comprehend.
Apparently I was the first person to do this. Many of you could have done the
same or better.
Both articles stood for peer-review for accuracy before publication.
While researching the Nakhla feature I discovered that the Catalogue of
Meteorites TKW of "40 stones of 40 kilos" to be a typo. There are 9,905.23
grams of traceable Nakhla.
In regards to the dog, I also "discovered" that:
- no dog was seen by a second witness, presented as evidence by anyone or
even claimed to be lost,
- no meteorite with even a hint of dog breath was offered,
- the site of the "left like ashes in the moment dog" was 33 kilometers from
a professionally defined, tiny 4.5 km.- diameter strewn field,
I learned that the farmer:
- had the day wrong,
- saw a "smoke column" that no one else saw,
- brought a specimen to the press from a place where "after careful inquiries
at Denshal showed that no meteorites had fallen there" and
- the whole doggone story was dismissed by researcher John Ball, Ph.D., of
the Egyptian Geological Survey as "doubtless the product of a lively
imagination."
If Ron wants to dispute these FACTS further, let him publish a peer reviewed
feature in a scientific periodical.
After four years of your illogical nonsense, put up or shut up, Ron.
Secondly, regarding Chassigny. To my honor, Dave Weir also included my
article on this rarest of all mets on his highest-regarded, private
meteoritical website on the net. As mentioned, it was also peer reviewed and
published in "Meteorite."
Besides compiling and interpreting the entire two century petrological
history of Chassigny, including a first-time from French-to-English
translation by Bernd ("Never Met Jane") Pauley of the circumstances of the
fall from a Paris Science Journal I "dug up" from 1815 (!), the ENTIRE
ORIGINAL AND REMAINING TKW is traced.
Yet, NASA webmaster ("Your tax dollars at work") Baalke, succinctly responds
unsolicited to a new list member asking about the "missing kilos" with this
gem:
"It was probably treated like an ordinary meteorite, nothing special."
"Nothing special"? I'm embarrassed for you, pardner. Obviously you didn't
read the Chassigny article and you know nothing of Chassigny.
I will warn all newcomers to this list, that although some of the information
contained therein is deemed to be accurate, your own research is the only way
to know the truth.
Kevin Kichinka
--- End Message ---
