----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Seeking
Knowledge and Dealing with MeteorwrongOwners was Classification Q
Hi, EJ,
Respectfully, I think you failed to comprehend
the content of the whole thread!
No one here thinks that it is a
meteorite.
Many, including yourself, have speculated what it may
be. Half of your post is guessing what it is from pictures.
Gary is
going for the facts about the rock.
Rock, not meteorite.
Gary
did not, nor did anyone else, post anything indicating that they thought
it was a meteorite.
We all know it's not a meteorite.
No one is
convinced that it is a "valuable specimen", either. You misinterpreted a
hope that the rock >may< be a mineral that the guy can sell for a
few bucks honestly, instead of continuing his vision rant. That will be up
to him. The point being made was closure to the guy's reference of the rock
to meteorites, one way or another - especially for this list.
The
lengthy thread was due to so many, again including yourself, thinking that
what he is doing is a waste of time, and the rock should remain a mystery
for never-ending condescending by the list. When is getting to the truth
ever a waste of time?
The best way to increase your knowledge base is
to deal with facts, not by guessing.
Gary has taken the initiative
and, at his own expense, will take samples to "two reputable geologists"
he knows; not for classification, as you are under the impression, but for
analysis only. The facts will be posted. You won't have to guess about
it anymore.
Gary used the word "geologist". He's not taking up
valuable time from meteorite labs. He is not having it tested as a possible
meteorite, nor representing it as one to anyone. He is having it tested
as a rock. You may want to read his post again.
Don't you think what
Gary is doing is scientific? Isn't this list, after all, a science-based
interest? Aren't scientists supposed to be curious? I'm surprised that
Gary is being so criticised by some, instead of commended!
Emails
are very easily misinterpreted. Please don't think that anything I typed
was meant to be insulting or sarcastic. No gauntlet has been
dropped. We're having a discussion. I only wanted to set the record
straight.
Cheers, Pete
From: E J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Pete Pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject:
Re: [meteorite-list] Seeking Knowledge and Dealing with Meteorwrong
Owners was Classification Q Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 03:25:22
-0400
Hello Gary, Pete, List
I've held back discussing this
again as I am not the one on the "vision quest". However, you've
raised the issue of getting this classified aka lab tested--at a meteorite
lab amongst other things. You think he can sell this for a sum and rebuild
his failing ministry. He'll make more in bake sales. For
Pete's sake...and mine , please tell us why you remain convinced that this
is "valuable specimen" beyond a that of landscaping boulder?
"Interesting" doesn't equate to rare and valuable. If it were, my
collection would be worth millions. I also want to say I loathe going
out on a limb especially working with photographs--there will always be
someone near by with pruning shears and they have a long memory for when
you made a bad call.
Old Man's ambush of the whipper snapper: There
are 3 straight up reasons not requiring lab work that show this can't be a
Martian meteorite-- name one?
How to Beef Up your Knowledge Base: In
a nut shell, a way to improve your identification knowledge is to get out
and see all the rocks you can, So when one does come up that
you haven't seen before, you'll have a better basis to judge if it is
rare or if it is just interesting. Additionally: read, read, read.
Google is your friend. Get Norton's "Cambridge Encyclopedia of
Meteorites" and McSween's "Meteorites and their Parent Bodies" Read
them three times. Study your own collection, practice describing each
specimen to your self.
Advice from the Good Ole Boy& Girl
Network: As far as seeking classification(?) Trust me on this , your
credibility is on the line every time you refer a specimen for "meteorite
" identification and that credibility slips down the toilet when you
send in an obvious meteorwrong. The way I see it is, you owe a duty to
the astro-geologist you contact to not waste his/her time. If you do
a field accessment and are unable to eliminate/ exclude an object as
a meteorite, only then do you start considering recommending it to
a meteorite lab and that only after you've floated it to your
other colleagues for their input. If you hold yourself out as a
meteorite expert then you better be able to back it up with several the
reasons it is not likely a meteorite or these meteorwrong owners will eat
your lunch and send you packing with your tail twixed your legs--Because
you did not confirm their rock as a meteorite--They obviously know more
than you do!. I re-learn the following lesson each day: You should
not interfere with another's right to remain ignorant. No matter how
much wishing, hoping, or praying it isn't going to turn this "water
into wine". No matter how sincere you believe this pastor is--his
hidden agenda is to keep this dream alive until he can explain it away and
face the reality that this was not a God send. I assure you it has
nothing to do with mineralogy. Some churches die on the vine for good
reasons! Check out Luke's Gospel?--it has been a while since I did any
church preaching. I feel for you but your Dutch Uncle would likely
advise you to get away from this situation as soon as you can extract
yourself honoring whatever commitments you've made. Read what
Randy Korotev has to say after dealing with 1000's of meteorwrong
owners <http://epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/meteorites/what_to_do.html>
The
Quest New Hampshire isn't a large state(nor is Vermont ) and seems you
would have scoured the state by now if not in person via google.
Google the Chlorite mineral group (esp. Clinochlore) and the rock
types greenschist , blueschist, and syenite. (See the links way
below) I only have state for location, cursory description and
photos(needing a reference object--coin, ruler, etc.) which you've taken
down to go on.
The new photo makes me go back to Actenolite-Tremolite
as I can see large crystals and to me this looks like other occurrences I
have seen. The "flaky" granules point to Clinochlore or any of several
Chlorite group minerals. I think this rock is not homogeneous but a
mix of parents because Chlorite and Tremolite aren't usually associated
but they are found in adjacent deposits. If just going by
casual appearances I would note that a cut face of Bilinga also shows
some crystal faces as so do some Eucrites.
You must have wondered
where the depressions in the Vision rock came from if not
"regmaglypts". Well remember the furry over human foot prints found
inside dinosaur foot prints in soft shale in Texas by some "Creation"(sic)
Scientists? When conventional scientist went to the location they
found the heals of the dinosaur tracks had been doctored to human
shape during "clean out". The Creationists were cleaning out the
tracks until their foot would fit in the depression. Well... you see
where this is going.
Options:
1. Port this over to the
Rockhound's List at Drizzle.com. There are world class mineralogist
there and this is their forte. Avoid telling them what you think it is and
ask them what it might be based on location and physical appearance.
To treat this objectively we really must get this discussion
uncoupled from "meteorite" for the time being. Talk to these
folks: <http://groups.msn.com/NewHampshireRocks/_whatsnew.msnw>.
2.
Contact John Creasy below and see where he refers you-- Or the NH state
geologist
3. The Pegmatie Workshop is meeting this soon in Maine at
Poland Mining Camp <http://homepage.mac.com/rasprague/PegShop/>
I don't think this is a real pegmatite but these folks spent a lot of time
with New England rocks and might know where it comes from.
4.
If you want to pay for it at around $50+ a pop contact Excalibur Minerals
in Peekskill, NY. <http://www.excaliburmineral.com/analysis.htm>
for a non destructive test which may reveal mineral compositions.
I
truly hope this helps and you can run this issue to ground. If
you want to believe I am full of hot air that is your choice and no
foul. However when you keep coming to the list--where there is
probably 200-300 man/woman years of meteorite expertise, hinting in the
back of your mind that you yourself are holding out hope that this is
a meteorite then this is way off the radar. We all learned by doing
and by studying but how many miles must you travel down a dead end road
do you have to go to prove it is a dead end like the last 15 signs
said?
Sincerely, Elton
The rest is specifics on NH rocks and
on metamorphism so only read if you are curious.
You have already
identified this as three different materials, I've given you 2 other
possibilities to explore. NH is replete with a intermingled sets of
rocks of distinct origins and the parent material has been repeatedly
exposed to mountain building events <http://abacus.bates.edu/acad/depts/geology/jcreasy.WM.html>.
The remains of a Volcanic Island Arc run down the middle of the
state. Google tells me that John Creasy is listed as a geology professor
who researched NH rocks and wrote the White Mountain Report in the
link above<http://abacus.bates.edu/acad/depts/geology/jcreasy.html>
perhaps emailing him , he might be able to advise you
further.
Earlier I wrote that this had an origin as an igneous rock
with some degree of metamorphism which I couldn't from the photos.
Well I back off this because Tremolite can also occur in advanced
metamorphs of marble. What I thought was a talc trend is likely
Chlorite/Clinochlore. And I said this was Pyroxenes and Tremolite is in the
Amphibole The rock does not appear homogeneous which would make me want to
look at the possibility that this was a complicated intermingling of marble
country rock and a pegmatite-- owing to an absence of Biotite see
syenite. These stem from Aluminum depleted granitoids so they will be
almost devoid of mica (Biotite, Muscovite). Chlorite is not related
to the true micas but it is is in the mica group owing to its propensity to
flake.
The history of this rock is NOT rare but I believe it is complex
and it would take 24 chapters of writing to explain all the nuances.
So consider taking the Lift's Notes Version of this survey on
metamorphics <http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/MetaRx/Metakeys.html>
Metamorphism
theory is a complex but specific sequence of change based on to temperature
and pressure of burial. The sequence of succession in is pretty
straight forward but the type rock one ends up with depends on the parent
rock and here we have a combination of carbonates/marble, intrusive igneous
and extrusive igneous. Certain index minerals will occur result in a
succession from as certain combinations from certain parent rock
types. NH has intrusive igneous massifs as found in plutonics
in Granite domes and pegmatite intrusions, extrusives as basalts, tuft, etc
from the island arch's--all with several hundreds of million years for
water to work its changes. At the boundary of marble and pegmatite there
will be a mix of new minerals owing to the marble being reheated and the
pegmatite
chilled.
______________________________________________ Meteorite-list
mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
--
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free
Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date:
5/22/2006
|