HI Carl.
I'm not sure why anyone would be "smoking".
Specimens were promised, but apparently none have been received. I'm glad to
see that Anne can report that new specimens will be donated for study.
I did get a chuckled at the assertion that any scientist would expect an
apology if anyone has questions about the conclusions of their research.
Furthermore, replication of findings is a foundation of all science. One
scientist's findings must be reproducible by others. It is unacceptable for any
scientist to feel his or her reputation is sufficient for their conclusions to
go unchallenged.
I would never be insulted if my findings were ever questioned. In fact they are
occasionally. That's the nature of my business. I try not to let erroneous data
go through but occasionally some bad data does slip through and I fully expect
to be questioned about this.
Now I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that anyone has submitted bad
data in this case, but the meteorites that are being referred to in these
threads, if proven to be what they are suspected of being, would be
extraordinary.
As one great, late astronomer once said, and has often been quoted,
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Any and all claims for all of the meteorites in question require rigorous proof
and I know no scientist who would insulted by requests for rigorous proofs of
any findings, their own or of others.
Cheers
--
Richard Kowalski
Full Moon Photography
IMCA #1081
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
