Last February, after almost four years of debate, Ron and I finally agreed on
words to appear on the "Nakhla" page on the NASA website he administers. I
consider the site a vital source of truth for meteorites. The US Government.
Not hyping meteorites for sale. Unbiased and unvarnished.
Since it's referenced by reporters around the world, it was important to me
to have the "dog story" represented in the new light per the 1998 research.
For all those who are "new" to meteorites, the dog story is THE meteorite
story for the ages. Apocalyptic. If a dog can be killed, a person can be,
too. There's even a Charlie Brown and Snoopy comic about it.
When the story was first published in 1998, the facts behind the truth were a
slam dunk. I am proud to have "discovered" the truth of the matter. I still
am (any of you could have done it, if you had the papers). I was even honored
last February in Tucson to receive a coveted "Nininger Award" partly for this
finding. While it surprises and saddens me that Monica Grady (I haven't heard
back) and Ron would ignore this new finding out of hand, Ron has been the
only one to actually debate it.
Ron's "scientific reason" for initially rejecting the facts can be found in a
July, 2000 message to this board -
"The story of the Nakhla meteorite killing a dog in 1911 is one of my
favorite meteorite stories that I like to tell people. I particularly like to
tell children.....I was a bit saddened to hear that Kevin Kichinka had
uncovered some compelling evidence about the origin of the story that
strongly indicated that the Nakhla meteorite did not hit and kill a dog."
"Compelling evidence" according to Ron himself.
I asked Ron to kindly change the NASA website, following an article in the
prestigious science journal "Nature" that made a big deal of the dead dog
after referencing the site.
Joel Schiff of "M" had told me that I am forever the keeper of the flame in
this matter. If I don't try to "change the dead dog world," who else will? He
agrees with my conclusion, and apparently so now does Alan Rubin, as does
Dave Weir, as does many, many of you who I thank for your usually humorous
and supportive letters.
Anyway, the great debate ensued. Ron would post his evermore incredible
theories, including only the facts useful to him, I would parry them. He
would just present another wave of theories. I would parry them. Ron would
now take his already refuted theories and build on them as they were now
fact.
If you can't convince them with brainstorms, baffle them with bullshit. I
would understand those that think Ron's ideas are "plausible."
All along, Ron would never answer my questions. Shouldn't there at least be a
dog body? No response. You scientifically claim that the Nakhla strewnfield
is bigger based on the size of the Allende strewnfield? No response. I ask
him to submit a peer-reviewed paper for publication. No response.
A good case in point is his thought just yesterday that "there's physical
evidence that the strewnfield is far bigger than reported, since one fell in
Denshal, 33 km from the 4.5km strewnfield."
But we don't know that one fell in Denshal. We can't extrapolate on that.
Friends, few meteorites in history were chased down more thoroughly than the
first one to fall in Egypt. They went town-to-town and door-to-door. They
paid the poor peasants money for specimens. It was Portales Valley-Egypt
style. It was the science event of the century.
Since Ron wants to promote his theories, especially his latest (another day,
another theory) that "meteorites fell in Denshal," here's mine.
Investigators made several trips over the months traveling through Denshal to
reach El Nakhla. It was known that they bought meteorites. They were in
Denshal getting off the train. Several people. Several times. With dineros
for meteorites. Can you complete this thought, Ron? Too tough? Let me. There
were no meteorites in Denshal.
They traveled overland from Denshal to the strewnfield. Many times. Many
researchers. Some with Ph.D.'s. Most spoke the local dialect and English. All
carried money to buy meteorites. The poor people had more use for money than
meteorites.
They didn't recover any. I doubt the credibility of someone who ignores
something so obvious. It becomes apparent that he has a personal agenda.
One alert reader mentioned that rather than allow Ron to build a case out of
thin air, we look instead at the trail of hearsay. Not just one conversation
(1. a farmer) quoted in a local paper by a (2.) reporter, then translated
into (3.) English by a Cairo paper - triple hearsay. And on this I'm supposed
to leave open a possibility that a dog was killed by a "SMALL FRAGMENT" by
guy who doesn't know Tuesday from Wednesday?
Where's the farmer? Did the reporter simply fabricate him? That's totally
possible, Ron. Let's say there's no farmer. No Mo. Then where are you at?
Maybe the reporter wasn't allowed to go into the field for expense account
reasons. But he was allowed to report from Denshal. So he brought out a
meteorite and made up a story. After all, there's no other witnesses, are
there? None.
Where's the meteorite? Was it just another one from the strewnfield carried
out for a story? That's totally possible. I have a piece of Nakhla that
matches exactly what Nakhla looks like. If I claim it fell in my Florida yard
will you support an even larger strewnfield, Ron? That's the logic you call
evidence for your theory.
Science is based on "the scientific method." Ron's entitled to his opinion.
But his opinion doesn't belong on a NASA website referenced by the world.
That's what this is about.
I am getting rather hot about Ron's suddenly ceaseless reminder that I seek
"censorship" of all who write that "a dog was hit by a stone and killed." He
takes the high ground, "I am against censorship." He took this tact two years
ago also.
I have requested that Ron change a scientific website to reflect the known
facts. This is not censorship, as reader Timothy Scott wrote to Ron and the
list on 11/13/00, "You wrongly accuse Kevin (of) wanting to censor something.
Nothing is farther from the truth. He simply wants you to change what he
believes to be inaccurate information"
Now two years later, Ron again looks for your support by accusing me of
censorship. Is this fair play? I've refrained from calling Ron an idiot,
which would be a far less grave accusation. I would be pleased if Ron would
refrain from continuing this false and inflammatory denunciation.
I've tried to have fun with this issue. I've tried to be serious. It's not
just about a dog. We've brought a lot of meteorite science into this,
educational for one and all. But above all, I've tried to be honest.
I attached the above description of Nakhla from the NASA website Baalke
handles. All of these years of ad nauseum debate boiled down to the essence
of a paragraph. These are the words we've wrassled over for four years.
He has just formally presented them to the list for the first time, although
we finalized and he posted the change in February.
There's a "problem", however.
These are not the words that I agreed to and were posted last February.
Although Ron has just claimed they are our mutual words, he's changed them
back for this new go-around.
Would you call that a lie?
Likes to scare children with stories of meteorites killing their pets, a lie
here, a little character assassination there........
It's become tiresome and frustrating responding to Ron's "ideas". Please
don't take my future refrain to mean that I abandon my position. I would
challenge Ron to submit a peer-reviewed paper for publication. Until he does,
I'll consider his ideas......his ideas.
I again would ask those interested in this discussion to review the archives.
Should anyone be interested in discussing what's in the literature, kindly
write me direct.
Kevin Kichinka
--- Begin Message ---
Ron Baalke wrote:
> Here's the text that the Kevin and I agreed to;
>
> A rain of 40 stones fell from the sky in 1911 near Nakhla in Egypt. The > falls
>were preceded by an appearance of a cloud and detonations, > frightening local
>residents. There is an eyewitness account that one of
> the fragments hit a dog. Efforts to substantiate the validity of the dog > story
>almost a century later have been unsuccessful thus far, though the > story hasn't
>been d i s p r o v e n either.
I can't find the word "disproven" in any dictionary, maybe it doesn't
exist...like a certain dog?
David
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
--- End Message ---
