[meteorite-list] Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor?

[Chris Peterson]

Any one of these individual components seems to lie on a spectrum 
between possible and plausible. But you string them all together, and 
the likelihood that the theory is correct seems extremely slim.

And I'd have to say that the notion you could utilize an ancient 
(visual) observer's records, scratched in clay, of an object still in 
space, to determine an atmospheric meteor path with any reasonable 
accuracy, is beyond belief. We'd be hard pressed to do that now, with 
instrumental data collected over several days or longer before impact. 
Knowing a short term movement to "within one degree" with respect to 
reference stars certainly isn't good enough for that.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "McCartney Taylor" <mccartney at blackbearddata.com>
To: "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:33 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Bad Science on ancient meteorite impactor?


>I don't agree with most of these conclusions.  I motion to have this
> work peer reviewed by meteoriticists. Do I hear a second?
>
> -mt
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/uob-cct033108.php