Dave F. (not proud tom)
Tom aka James Knudson wrote:
Hello List, Bob V. wrote;
"By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really flattering me. Tom has discovered a way to get me to post to the List, and he uses it most effectively. He knows that I can't resist the opportunity to prove him wrong!"
Oh contraire , I think the world of Robert Verish and his opinions!!!!! Yes, I know how to get him to post and I do this when and only when I want to the correct answer to a particular question! So, I am just killing two birds with one stone, complimenting a man I respect and ensuring we get the correct answer! : )
Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier <>< Yea, that's right, The proudest member of the IMCA # 6168
----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Verish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:49 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??
Tom wrote:
I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they landed? I bet, not many? I know Bob V. will have these answers!
By now everyone knows that Tom isn't really flattering me. Tom has discovered a way to get me to post to the List, and he uses it most effectively. He knows that I can't resist the opportunity to prove him wrong! ;-)
Not that I have to work hard to prove that I DON'T "have all the answers", but I will jump at any opportunity to give proper credit to all of my colleagues and team members who have worked hard at recording the surface conditions at all of their find localities, and for sharing their observations with me.
But for all of those who would simply accept the "answers" of a self-described "expert", I have some bad news for you. There ain't no experts, and there are no simple answers. Hell! We're still trying to figure out how to word sensible questions!
But I do like to give myself credit for being one of the first to question whether any "good" strewn field data could be obtained from documenting meteorite finds on dry lakes. Of course, since much of the talk about strewn fields on dry lakes came from my very own web pages, it is only fair that I am now a vocal advocate for the "NO GOOD Strewn Fields on Dry Lakes" school of thought.
I tend to agree with Doug that Dry Lake Strewn Fields are in the eye of the beholder. But after conferring with my dry-lake-meteorite-searching colleagues, all of our observations tend to say the same thing, and semantics aside, there is a whole lot of movement of objects occurring on these "dry" lakes.
So the short answer is: on dry lakebeds, we prefer to call these - accumulation zones, or recovery fields - versus, "strewn fields".
But keep in mind which "camp" I belong. I'm squarely in the middle of the "don't have all the answers" school of thought! ;-) Bob V.
[meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields?? Tom aka James Knudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:52:06 -0700
Hi John and list, now this is the type of questions that should be on our list!!! I to want to hear the answers to John's questions too. I never quite thought about it! Having hunted GB many times, I have to wonder if any of the strewn fields data is strewn field data or nothing more than rock movement data?
I wonder how many GB finds are actually where they landed, I bet, not many? I know Bob V. will have these answers! Thanks, Tom Peregrineflier <>< Yea, that's right, The proudest member of the IMCA # 6168
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:14 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Dry Lake Stewnfields??
To Rob, Bob, Adam, and others:
Recent finds from the Nevada dry lakes were grouped
in a small area within a dry lake. The finding of three apparent pieces from same fall created a description by Adam that these finds might constitute a new strewnfield.
Questions/observations in regards to desertstrewnfields.
1. Obvious groupings of fallen masses would make the
likelihood of the area
being a meteorite stewnfield. Do multiple finds in
desert locale usually get
described as a stewnfield?
2. Does the fact that many rocks get moved around in
these environments take the strewnfield idea down a notch with rocks being scattered?...or does their proximity within the bounds of normal surface movements qualify them to be still within the original strewnfield?
3. Is the idea of stating a location has a new
strewnfield more about this location being a new place to find more than one meteorite of the same apparent fall?...and not so much about the actual fall characteristics?
I guess I'm just curious about the use of wordstrewnfield in this case?
Yearning to be set straight,
John
______________________________________________
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
