Friday, September 21, 2007

Re: CHUD-u-like   [Iain Murray]

The assertion that it was a meteorite is based on the finding that there was iron involved.  Color me unimpressed.  If they'd found some hithertoo unknown element like Dalekenium, now that'd convince me.  In the meantime, UK academic Benny Peiser, a specialist in near-earth object alarmism, has the following advice:

I don't wish to be seen as hyper-sceptical, but I would like to know whether the reported "3-inch magnetic fragment" that is said to "contain iron, a mineral found in all rocks from space" - is all the evidence that has been found (and carefully analysed?). AP reported only two days ago that "Jose Mechare, a scientist with Peru's Geological, Mining and Metallurgical Institute, said a geologist had confirmed that it was a "rocky meteorite," based on the fragments analyzed." So which is it? And just how compelling is the evidence? There are a number of other contradictions and questions. Researchers are right to demand that they "still want to do other tests to confirm the strike." Interested observers would be well advised not to rush to conclusions before the results of careful laboratory tests have been checked and published. BJP

As for me, I await the rumors about Men In Black being seen around the site.

09/21 10:50 AMShare