Talk:Alan Bond (engineer)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Asteroid theory
editSo many "may have"s in this. I'm still not sure exactly what Bond and his colleague did a computer modelling of. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- See [[1]] -- they claimed to have modelled "the night notebook of a Sumerian astronomer as he records the events in the sky before dawn on the 29 June 3123 BC" with some astronomy software, and they've self-published a book about it.Doug Weller (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The Inappropriateness of “Believe”
editRegarding the use of “believe” in the below sentence as being inappropriate is definitely not a case of "semantic nonsense."
The issue of whether an impact caused the landslide has been researched and no evidence was found for an asteroid, meteorite or comet, and geologists believe it was caused by other factors such as 'deep creep'. [Alan Bond (rocket developer) – Revision of February 27, 2011]
The word “believe” has the implication that a person regards something to be true without any tangible evidence, proof, or reason for thinking so. Using the word “believe” in this sentence falsely indicates that the “geologists” lack any scientific evidence or proof for disputing the impact origin of the Kofels landslide deposits. It also implies that their disagreement is solely a matter of personal belief. The fact of the matter, is that the opposite is true as several geologists have reviewed the arguments for the impact origin of the Kofels landslide and found that they are based on misunderstandings about the origin and misidentification of materials found in the landslide deposits. Also, they have found that many of the characteristics of the landslide deposits directly contradict the proposed impact origin of the Kofels landslide. There is more than enough physical evidence and scientific arguments, which has been published in numerous peer-reviewed papers, to demonstrate that “geologists” have ample, well-documented scientific reasons for disputing the impact origin of the Kofels landslide. Therefore, the word “believe” is inappropriate as it falsely characterizes their reasons for disputing an impact origin for the Kofels landslide. The disagreement over the use of “believe” is not “semantic nonsense.” Instead it is a matter of correctly characterizing the why “geologists” disagree with Mr. Alan Bond.Paul H. (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Now Retired
edithttps://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news/alan-bond-retires-reaction-engines
It could do with changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.184.12 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)