https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1303.1845/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5358275urn:hackerpapers:mention:1303.1845:5358275Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:35:15 GMT<p>There are some serious problems with this claim: 1. &quot;In total, Jamie Wallis at Cardiff University and a few buddies received 628 stone fragments collected from rice fields in the region. However, they were able to clearly identify only three as possible meteorites.&quot; In other words, the researchers weren&#x27;t in on the collection activity, and may not possess the expertise to distinguish meteoritic material from ordinary earthly rocks (that determination is not easy). 2. &quot;One stone, for example, had a density of less than 1 gram per cubic centimetre, less than all known carbonaceous meteorites.&quot;…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1303.1845/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>q-bio.OThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5357739urn:hackerpapers:mention:1303.1845:5357739Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:26:17 GMT<p>&gt; published in the Journal of Cosmology, a publication of questionable repute [2]. Well, at least their publications are not behind a paywall, free for download: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845 so anyone can check the believability of this research themselves!</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1303.1845/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>q-bio.OT