Re: [meteorite-list] AD* new Africa impact crater page and a new? crater?

[Jason Utas]

Hello Alex, All,

Well, first-off, the power needed to make a 35m crater...I don't think
conventional weapons would do it.

Secondly, I did some sleuthing and managed to find this:

http://www.gearthhacks.com/dlfile24600/African-Meteor-Crater?.htm

Third, when I plug in the coordinates available on Dirk's site, I get
an island just south of JapanI couldn't find the crater by trying
to read the coordinates in the screenshot - too difficult.
Anyone know where it really is?  Dirk?

Regards,
Jason


On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Alexander Seidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I´m not quite sure whether this would really be "a nice place to 
> visit", Mike, as you call it - I mean in real life under actual 
> circumstances. The territory of Western Sahara is contested between Morocco 
> and Polisario Front, and long before any convincing proof that this is a 
> crater of meteoritic origin, some manmade origin of military character might 
> and should be taken into closer consideration first.
>
> Alex
> Berlin/Germany
>
>
>  Original-Nachricht 
>> Datum: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
>> Von: Michael Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] AD* new Africa impact crater page and a new?   
>>  crater?
>
>> WOW, dirk, that is great work, it is amazing to see all those craters, and
>> the new one is very interesting? It is right on the beach, would be a nice
>> place to visit!
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Tue, 8/5/08, drtanuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > From: drtanuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Subject: [meteorite-list] AD* new Africa impact crater page and a new?
>> crater?
>> > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> > Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 5:49 AM
>> > Dear list,
>> >   I have completed a page on impact craters of Africa with
>> > images from Google Earth.
>> >
>> > http://meteoritesjapan.com/africacraters.aspx
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  At the very bottom of the page is a newly? discovered
>> > crater?  Origin of the crater is unknown.  Does anyone have
>> > any information about this feature?
>> >
>> > Info:
>> > Western Sahara, Africa
>> > 28°25' N, 129°38' E
>> > Diameter 35m
>> >
>> > Best Regards, Dirk Ross...Tokyo
>> > __
>> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> > Meteorite-list mailing list
>> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> __
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] New possible impact structures detected NH. US.

[Jason Utas]

Hey All,
While looking around, I stumbled across this:

25°01'03.94"
133°17'15.25"

Is this a known crater?  It sure looks like a crater to me...a fresh,
obvious crater..
Regards,
Jason

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:53 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good evening Dirk (MEZ 20:40)
> Hello list,
> thank you for your comment to possible impact structure in Australia
> (Northeast of Henbury).
> I have now noticed the altitude funktion of GE (Mouse shifting). Hunting
> impact sites was a hobby of me about
> nearly 40 years ago, when I was employed in oil prospection companies. My
> job was analysing seismic waves on
> an IBM 7060 computer which was at that time one of the fastes of the world.
> often I found in the waves an echo
> of compressed limestone. After a long pause I started again in the 90s
> visiting the german structures
> Noerdlingern Ries and Steinheimer Becken. At that time it was aloud to
> prospect the scene as hobby
> mineralogist and I found some very nice cones. Today it is forbidden and I
> use GOOGLE.
>
> Now my answer to your comment:
> In a desert area a 1 meter higher level around a ring of trees must not be
> the a hill. It could be a dune of
> sand. Remember! During impact the crater wall inside is hard forced by
> shearing forces and the crater center
> is forced by hard pressure. After years of weathering the crater will be
> filled with sand and everytime when
> it becames wet the ring of sheared limestone around the compressede center
> takes off the water and the sand
> enters the higher porosity. It sinks and build the water reservoir for the
> vegetation.So it might be a filled
> crater. If you compare it against the small Henburies you will see the same
> eff
> ect.
> My theory is that the Henbury cluster is not the total impact area and that
> Boxhole is a crater of the cluster
> too. Between both there must be a lot of other impacts. I have put a ruler
> from one to the other and on this
> line a lot of images look like impact structures. But I'm not im Australia.
> Therefore I can only make a
> conjecture.
>
> Other "impact structures":
> 24°29'34.68"S, 133°13'30.44"E
>
>
> Now to New Hamshire, US. look at:
> 43° 6'42.49"N,  71°11'24.44"W
> 43°16'57.90"N,  71°11'6.78"W
> 42°54'53.69"N,  71°35'36.35"W
> I did not know wether they are or wether they are wellknown.
>
> Tell me please your meaning
> Sincerely Uwe
>
>
> -Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-
> Von: drtanuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Verschickt: Fr., 25. Jul. 2008, 2:04
> Thema: Re: [meteorite-list] New possible impact structures detected
>
>
>
> Hi Uwe,
>  It appears to be a small circular hill surrounded by vegetation.  The
> center
> is higher than the surrounding area and the water drains off of the sides of
> the
> hill providing more water to support the vegetation (shrubs or trees).  Use
> your
> mouse and move the cursor over the feature and you can see the elevations as
> you
> move around the feature.  Also tilt it an you can see some indication that
> it is
> about 1 meter above the surrounding circular base.  Dirk
>
>  How long have you been looking for impact craters and what start
> ed your
> interest?  Best of luck!
>
>
> --- On Fri, 7/25/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New possible impact structures detected
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 2:39 AM
>> Hi Dirk, look at  24°27'46.92"S,
>> 133°16'9.01"E.
>> What do you think is it?
>> Uwe
>>
>>
>> -Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-
>> Von: drtanuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> An: Mark Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Uwe
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
>> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> Verschickt: Do., 24. Jul. 2008, 12:52
>> Thema: Re: [meteorite-list] New possible impact structures
>> detected
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello Mark, Uwe and List,
>>  Thank you both for your posts.
>>   Mark I do not see any evidence for any military activity
>> to the
>> South.  The
>> darkened areas around the animal pens are manure and the
>> buildings are
>> all
>> intact.
>>   The circular "target" that Uwe has found is
>> difficult to determine
>> just what
>> it is because of its size and the poor resolution of the
>> image.
>> Elevations at
>> the site do not indicate a circular depression and tilted
>> images only
>> reveal
>> that is is on a hillslope.
>>   Mark is correct that the Antarctica image is just too
>> poor to tell
>> anything.
>>  Best Regards, Dirk Ross...Tokyo
>>
>>
>> --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Mark Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > From: Mark Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New possible impact
>> structures detected
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>> meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> > Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 6:17 PM
>> > Hi Uwe,
>> >
>> > Not sure about the Peru one, it looks like a military
>> > training range or similar! - scan to the south and
>> there
>> > are some burned out buildi

Re: [meteorite-list] New Carancas article, same old crap

[Jason Utas]

Hola Michael, Armando, All,
I found a nice website for calculating mass/energy/velocity:

http://www.1728.com/energy.htm

Using that, and the estimate from Peter Brown's (Univ. W. Ontario)
study of the event, which stated that roughly .03 kton TNT energy was
released, I was able to get the data for a "basketball-sized" stone of
20kg.

In order to release that much energy, it would have had to have been
moving at roughly   112.04 km/s.  This is faster than the encounter
velocity of even the fastest known moving bodies of any size within
the solar system, as even comets only get up to speeds in the 50 km/s
range with any frequency.

To be perfectly frank, the lpl @ UofA states the following:

"The minimum impact velocity on Earth is 11 km/s. Typical impact
velocities are 17 km/s for asteroids and 51 km/s for comets. The
maximum Earth impact velocity for objects orbiting the sun is 72
km/s."

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

So, I reran some of the numbers and came out with the following:

The minimum possible mass of the impactor was (using only this model,
and disregarding all other studies and reports which suggest of a mass
> 1 tonne) 48kg.

Michael Farmer recovered and purchased in total < 3 kg, from what I understand.

Therefore, even if you do blame Michael for taking that much, the
Peruvian government left at least, given the total recovered weight
(~13 kg), and the minimum possible weight using the simple KE =
1/2mv^2, roughly 35 kg of space rock in the crater.

Or maybe they left several tonnes of it.

Either way, you can stop this incessant nagging.  You're wrong.
Physics says so.
Even if you don't trust me, you can work it out for yourself.

...Well, I hope you can.

Best Regards,

Jason


I'll be out of reach for a day or so, but will reply in as prompt a
manner as circumstances allow.

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Michael Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "The mass was stolen by some American as usual" What a pathetic statement by 
> you. To steal would be to take something that is not yours. I paid for every 
> gram of meteorite from the people who owned it, the Aymara people who's land 
> it fell on. And somehow I doubt that my 700 grams of meteorite comprised the 
> mass. Either way, the amount I bought was reported to the scientists who did 
> the work on the meteorite, so the fact that pieces were sold on ebay by 
> Pervians, Bolivians, Americans, Germans etc, has no affect on the scientific 
> study of the crater or meteorite. Why no hatred or mention of them Armando, 
> or is it only Americans who steal, the Bolivans got theirs legally in your 
> eyes right? Get over yourself Armando, you are clearly nothing more than a 
> bitter anti-American, nothing more. Funny, Americans have had wars with 
> Germany, Italy, and England, but never with Portugal, so where does this 
> intense hatred come from? We all would like to know. I think it
>  comes from the fact that I beat you to the prize in your own country, of 
> course you say I stole Ourique, even though I bought most of it. You also 
> bought a large piece you told this list, did you somehow pay with different 
> money which means your piece is not stolen? I still cant figure this one out.
> Michael Farmer
>
>
> --- On Fri, 7/4/08, Armando Afonso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From: Armando Afonso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New Carancas article, same old crap
>> To: "Michael Farmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> Date: Friday, July 4, 2008, 9:30 AM
>> The size of a crater is related not only to the impactor´s
>> mass, but to
>> velocity, as everyone knows.
>> If none of the variables could be measured (the mass was
>> stollen  by some
>> american and sold in ebay, as usual :-) ), how can you have
>> a better idea
>> than others of the size of the meteoroid?
>>
>> Armando
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Michael Farmer"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: 
>> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:13 PM
>> Subject: [meteorite-list] New Carancas article, same old
>> crap
>>
>>
>> > http://www.livinginperu.com/news-6826
>> >
>> > Note the last part, they still think the Carancas
>> meteorite was the size
>> > of a basketball. When will we ever get these
>> scientists and news people
>> > off of that idiotic size comparison. I have seen it
>> like 50 times for huge
>> > fireballs and meteorite falls. They always say
>> "it was the size of an
>> > acorn or basketball" or some crap like that. The
>> only way a basketball
>> > sized object could make a crater like that would be if
>> it had a little
>> > nuclear bomb inside.
>> > Happy 4th to all Americans on the list.
>> > Michael Farmer
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > __
>> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> > Meteorite-list mailing list
>> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> >
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> >
>> >
>> >
> ___

Re: [meteorite-list] Opinion needed !!

[Jason Utas]

Hola,
Sounds like a decent story - until you look at the pictures.

1) That thing wasn't free-falling; look at the gouges in the picture -
it was moving almost horizontally.  Meteorites don't do that, at least
without retaining enough velocity to make a crater (necessary mass to
do so would be, apparently 10-12 tonnes if we look at Carancas).

2) Look at it.  It's rusty.  If it just fell, it should be either
matte-black (chondrite), glossy-black (achondrite), or
gunmetal-blue-grey (iron).
If it had a broken side, we might see anything ranging from white to
black, maybe hackly metal, but this is a non-issue; whatever it is,
it's rusty, and thus is not a fresh meteorite.

Sorry, maybe next time...

Regards,
Jason

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:07 AM, tracy latimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Wonderful!  Have that thing analyzed; it looks promising (as long as there 
> wasn't any heavy machinery operating nearby at the time).
>
> Tracy Latimer
>
>> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:36:16 +0200
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> Subject: [meteorite-list] Opinion needed !!
>>
>> Listoids
>>
>> Holland is a small country so if something happens, meteorite related,
>> people know where to find you.
>> We get many reports about a possible hammer here and there and since we
>> only have four meteorites in history so far we don't get that shaky
>> anymore since we know it's a tough one to get our fifth spacerock.
>>
>> This time a man called a bit in panic, telling us he heard a loud bang
>> yesterday late afternoon and found this piece stuck next to his window in
>> a plastic siding. After sending us these first pictures it looks quite
>> scary, eventhough I realize it probably should have plunged much deeper
>> after impact but still..
>>
>> Another thingthese folks live on a farm totaly isolated from traffic.
>>
>> Opinions welcome folks...
>> Here are the pics...
>>
>> http://pic70.picturetrail.com/VOL1850/8117688/19931258/322341103.jpg
>>
>> http://pic70.picturetrail.com/VOL1850/8117688/19931258/322341193.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> _
> Earn cashback on your purchases with Live Search - the search that pays you 
> back!
> http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=earncashback
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Show your meteorite art

[Jason Utas]

Hola Mike, All,
Here are a few shots of a painting of mine from this past year...

http://flickr.com/photos/cameteoritefinder/2588462425/

Eh, I had fun with it, and for a rough job...I was satisfied anyways.
I've also recently uploaded a number of other photographs of
meteorites...have a look through the photostream.  I've taken to
trying to go for more more artistic shots than the typical
"find-in-situ" stuff.
Regards,
Jason

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Mike Bandli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've seen some amazing meteorite artwork from some fellow collectors. From
> Fred Olsen's incredible Ensi-woodcut repro to Graham Ensor's original etched
> Seymchan transfer.
>
> Since the list has been slow lately and I thought it might be fun to see
> other people's meteorite related art/prints/objects/paintings/etc.. (besides
> the rocks themselves) Original or repro. Amateur or professional.
>
> I'm curious to see other meteorite related art that may exist that we all
> may not know about.
>
> A local frame shop was running a custom framing sale and I finally had a
> couple pieces done.
>
> Fred Olsen's Ensi-woodcut:
>
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/877141/Ensi-Print.jpg
>
> One of Svend Buhl's repro-prints (Hessle Meteorites):
>
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/877141/Hessle-Print.jpg
>
> I can't believe how expensive custom framing is these days, but they sure
> look nice on the wall! Even my wife agrees. Eventually, I will have
> everything framed and sprinkled about the house.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mike Bandli
> www.Astro-Artifacts.com
> IMCA #5765
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] What a surprise! (not)

[Jason Utas]

Hello Herman, Dave, All,
Regardless of whether or not he discounted shipping, he did still
'lift' a description that was written by someone else - without asking
for the right to use it.
This has been noted as an issue in the past, and it is clear that
(although he did well to find a cheaper shipping service) wayner44
still made a mistake in copying a description which he could easily
have, at the very least, credited to the author.  I see no excuse for
doing what he did - except for laziness.
Furthermore, who on earth would pay more than a few dollars to ship a
twenty gram bit of Henbury?  I think you're looking at this the wrong
way; it should have cost only a few dollars to ship it in the first
place.  He discounted it $9 from...what, exactly?  Needless to say, it
would have been ridiculous had he *not* changed the shipping cost.
What he did was not a shining example of charity, ingenuity, or
intelligence.  What he did was reasonable, nothing more - to say
nothing of his plagiarism.
Regards,
Jason

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:01 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Dave;
>
> Thanks for the positive,pleasant post about wayner44.He sure made your
> day,i'll bet,and you sure made my day with such a positive post about someone 
>  who
> did good and we never would have known about it if you hadn't taken the time
> to inform us.My hat is off to you.
>
> Best Regards;Herman Archer IMCA 2770.
>
>
>
> **Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
> listings at AOL Autos.
> (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp0030002851)
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Zulu Queen, MCcartney Taylor etc

[Jason Utas]

Hello Pete,
I admit that it does sound as though he (McCartney) is in the right,
but all the same...there's a reason they give people the benefit of
the doubt in court, and I see no reason why we should condemn someone
(in this case, Bob) when there is still a chance that he may be
innocent.
The way I see it, if we know more, we can resolve this to a greater
degree, and come to a more conclusive decision as a group than we
would otherwise.  The trouble in the past has been, in my opinion,
that people get caught up in the
-  he cheated me
--  no, he cheated me
argument that too little evidence comes out and others never see what
was actually done.  I think it's high time we started making it clear
as a community that such actions will -not- be accepted, at all.
I believe that this should be resolved with such certainty that the
wrongdoer be banned from the IMCA, banned from the list, kept from
being accepted by all and any within the 'world of meteorites' by
those who are truly a part of it, because there should be no place in
such a hobby for one who lies, cheats, or steals.
Especially when -we- have the power to make this such a safe place.
Or am I wrong?
Regards,
Jason

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Pete Pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Jason wrote: "And if you, McCartney, do want to prove your case to the rest 
> ofus, this would be a good time to do so as well."
>
> If anyone is going to take votes, as far as I'm concerned their case is 
> already proven in a *legitimate* court, and McCartney doesn't have to keep 
> proving it to this motley crew ;).
>
> Cheers,
> Pete
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:13:36 -0700
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Zulu Queen, MCcartney Taylor etc
> >
> > Hello Bob, McCartney, All,
> > I think that the trouble, Bob, is that McCartney has been supplying us
> > with more details than you have, and they do point towards your guilt.
> > Apparently there was a case filed against you, and you knew about it
> > - but didn't respond to the court order to argue against it. That
> > makes you sound pretty guilty...
> > To be perfectly frank, I, for one, would like to know the details of
> > the trade and come to my own conclusions; would both of you be willing
> > to disclose the details of the trade and following disagreement?
> > Who sent who what meteorite, how much did each specimen weigh, etc.?
> > If you do want to prove your innocence, that would be the best way,
> > Bob. And if you, McCartney, do want to prove your case to the rest of
> > us, this would be a good time to do so as well.
> > I'm not entirely sure if anyone else is interested in hearing the rest
> > of this, but I think that the list is as good a forum as any for
> > proving a dealer's innocence or guilt in a situation, whatever the
> > case may be, because this does have an effect on the rest of us,
> > collectors and dealers alike. I, for one, wouldn't want to deal with
> > a dishonest dealer, whatever the case may be.
> > Regards,
> > Jason
> >
>
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Bob Evans  wrote:
> >> Hey Mike,
> >>
> >> Thanks for causing alot of problems for me.
> >> Did it ever occur to you that I wasnt willing to give you my sources name
> >> because I was in the process of trying to obtain more meteorites,
> >> and I didnt need to compete with everybody else, including you ?
> >> Why dont you try asking Mike Farmer or the Hupes for the Moroccan names and
> >> phone #s. Good luck.
> >> Everything I ever sold you was up front nothing to hide. Now you come along
> >> with this.
> >> Why dont you send it to an accredited lab and see what they have to say
> >> instead of attacking me.
> >> Thats also pretty lame of you seeing as I told you that Im dealing with a
> >> parent who is in the hospital with blood clots in her lungs and I would 
> >> deal
> >> with you later.
> >>
> >> Just so everyone should know. I have asked atleast one other dealer ( who
> >> sells many rare items on ebay ) for information on their supplier or
> >> provenance to just have my numerous inquiries go unanswered. So, why am I
> >> being singled out ?
> >>
> >> As far as jackass MCcartney Taylor , I gave the idiot planetary and
> >> achondrite for his chondrite and the moron sued me. Oh, he lied about not
> >> receiving my meteorites in court. How do you like that IMCA ?
> >>
> >> Mike, dont bother emailing back. I dont have anything else to say to you.
> >> Email the list though, they love this shit.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __
> >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> >> Meteorite-list mailing list
> >> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >>
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/met

Re: [meteorite-list] Zulu Queen, MCcartney Taylor etc

[Jason Utas]

Hello Bob, McCartney, All,
I think that the trouble, Bob, is that McCartney has been supplying us
with more details than you have, and they do point towards your guilt.
 Apparently there was a case filed against you, and you knew about it
- but didn't respond to the court order to argue against it.  That
makes you sound pretty guilty...
To be perfectly frank, I, for one, would like to know the details of
the trade and come to my own conclusions; would both of you be willing
to disclose the details of the trade and following disagreement?
Who sent who what meteorite, how much did each specimen weigh, etc.?
If you do want to prove your innocence, that would be the best way,
Bob.  And if you, McCartney, do want to prove your case to the rest of
us, this would be a good time to do so as well.
I'm not entirely sure if anyone else is interested in hearing the rest
of this, but I think that the list is as good a forum as any for
proving a dealer's innocence or guilt in a situation, whatever the
case may be, because this does have an effect on the rest of us,
collectors and dealers alike.  I, for one, wouldn't want to deal with
a dishonest dealer, whatever the case may be.
Regards,
Jason

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Bob Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Mike,
>
> Thanks for causing alot of problems for me.
> Did it ever occur to you that I wasnt willing to give you my sources name
> because I was in the process of trying to obtain more meteorites,
> and I didnt need to compete with everybody else, including you ?
> Why dont you try asking Mike Farmer or the Hupes for the Moroccan names and
> phone #s. Good luck.
> Everything I ever sold you was up front nothing to hide. Now you come along
> with this.
> Why dont you send it to an accredited lab and see what they have to say
> instead of attacking me.
> Thats also pretty lame of you seeing as I told you that Im dealing with a
> parent who is in the hospital with blood clots in her lungs and I would deal
> with you later.
>
> Just so everyone should know. I have asked atleast one other dealer ( who
> sells many rare items on ebay ) for information on their supplier or
> provenance to just have my numerous inquiries go unanswered. So, why am I
> being singled out ?
>
> As far as jackass MCcartney Taylor , I gave the idiot planetary and
> achondrite for his chondrite and the moron sued me. Oh, he lied about not
> receiving my meteorites in court. How do you like that IMCA ?
>
> Mike, dont bother emailing back. I dont have anything else to say to you.
> Email the list though, they love this shit.
>
>
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Don't delay, order today! - Suspect Auction-Suspect [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Jason Utas]

I said:

> The only slag that I've known to contain olivine was Seymchan, and
> there's some debate as to whether that was actually waste, or, in
> fact, a synthetic meteorite look-alike meant to confuse buyers.
> The fact that the stone contains olivine means that either:

*Not "Seymchan," but rather "Shirokovsky."

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Elton, All,
> Hardly; I just think it's stupid to rule any sample out completely
> without a lab analysis.
> There's no single feature on the stone being auctioned that would
> suggest that it is not, in fact, a fresh mesosiderite individual, and
> seeing as I am as qualified as you, if not better, to tell, I don't
> see how you can realistically argue.
> ...Or am I right:
>
> http://www.meteoriteguy.com/catalog/dong-ujimqin/520.9.htm
>
> The only slag that I've known to contain olivine was Seymchan, and
> there's some debate as to whether that was actually waste, or, in
> fact, a synthetic meteorite look-alike meant to confuse buyers.
> The fact that the stone contains olivine means that either:
>
> 1) Someone went out of their way to purchase pieces of yellowish
> olivine, and put it in some slag to fool potential buyers.  Possible I
> suppose, but this seems unlikely.
>
> 2) A synthetic replacement such as glass could have been used, but the
> crystals pictured were not of a typical bottle colour, so some special
> source must have been used...or maybe they mixed brown and green?
> Either way, you're not looking at the typical scammer if they did take
> the trouble to figure out the colour that the olivine should have
> been.  Furthermore, if they'd taken the time/trouble to figure out as
> much about meteorites, they would likely have figured out that their
> stone wouldn't sell on ebay as-listed.  But I might be overestimating
> the seller.  Or maybe slag typically contains large yellow-orange
> crystals...no.
>
> 3) (Your suggestion here.)
>
> 4) It is a meteorite.
>
> Honestly, Elton, have a look at that picture for yourself.  The stones
> are very similar in texture, though the ebay stone appears as bit more
> oddly shaped.  That said, the stone pictured on Michael Farmer's page
> is a fragment, and the stone on ebay appeared to be a complete,
> ablated individual.  I assume that ablation would sculpt such a
> heterogeneous stone admirably.
> Jason
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Mr EMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ha ha Funny... the Rorschach-Shroom Techinque of meteorite
> > identification...Down to confirming orange olivine crystals-- in a
> > mesosiderite no less--and fresh?  It is fresh from the slag pile!
> >
> > I've got petrified frog poop that looks more like a meteorite then
> > this.
> >
> > Pleeease...this is an early April One-0 post, Right?
> >
> > Eman
> > --- Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Olah All,
> > > Looks like a fresh mesosiderite.  I know, the shape is odd - but have
> > > a look at fresh pieces of that Chinese mesosiderite fall Dong Umjim
> > > Qui...or however it's spelled...they look rather similar to this,
> > > though by the look of the orange crystals clearly visible on the
> > > surface of this stone, this one has more olivine in it.
> >
> >
> > > That said, it could also be an unusual piece of slag,<==gudanzer
> >
> > and I don't
> > > feel like betting $1k on such a strange piece from a questionable
> > > location...if I had more money, I might think otherwise.
> > > Regards,
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Michael Murray
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120236513887
> >
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Don't delay, order today! - Suspect Auction-Suspect [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Jason Utas]

Hello Elton, All,
Hardly; I just think it's stupid to rule any sample out completely
without a lab analysis.
There's no single feature on the stone being auctioned that would
suggest that it is not, in fact, a fresh mesosiderite individual, and
seeing as I am as qualified as you, if not better, to tell, I don't
see how you can realistically argue.
...Or am I right:

http://www.meteoriteguy.com/catalog/dong-ujimqin/520.9.htm

The only slag that I've known to contain olivine was Seymchan, and
there's some debate as to whether that was actually waste, or, in
fact, a synthetic meteorite look-alike meant to confuse buyers.
The fact that the stone contains olivine means that either:

1) Someone went out of their way to purchase pieces of yellowish
olivine, and put it in some slag to fool potential buyers.  Possible I
suppose, but this seems unlikely.

2) A synthetic replacement such as glass could have been used, but the
crystals pictured were not of a typical bottle colour, so some special
source must have been used...or maybe they mixed brown and green?
Either way, you're not looking at the typical scammer if they did take
the trouble to figure out the colour that the olivine should have
been.  Furthermore, if they'd taken the time/trouble to figure out as
much about meteorites, they would likely have figured out that their
stone wouldn't sell on ebay as-listed.  But I might be overestimating
the seller.  Or maybe slag typically contains large yellow-orange
crystals...no.

3) (Your suggestion here.)

4) It is a meteorite.

Honestly, Elton, have a look at that picture for yourself.  The stones
are very similar in texture, though the ebay stone appears as bit more
oddly shaped.  That said, the stone pictured on Michael Farmer's page
is a fragment, and the stone on ebay appeared to be a complete,
ablated individual.  I assume that ablation would sculpt such a
heterogeneous stone admirably.
Jason

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Mr EMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ha ha Funny... the Rorschach-Shroom Techinque of meteorite
> identification...Down to confirming orange olivine crystals-- in a
> mesosiderite no less--and fresh?  It is fresh from the slag pile!
>
> I've got petrified frog poop that looks more like a meteorite then
> this.
>
> Pleeease...this is an early April One-0 post, Right?
>
> Eman
> --- Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Olah All,
> > Looks like a fresh mesosiderite.  I know, the shape is odd - but have
> > a look at fresh pieces of that Chinese mesosiderite fall Dong Umjim
> > Qui...or however it's spelled...they look rather similar to this,
> > though by the look of the orange crystals clearly visible on the
> > surface of this stone, this one has more olivine in it.
>
>
> > That said, it could also be an unusual piece of slag,<==gudanzer
>
> and I don't
> > feel like betting $1k on such a strange piece from a questionable
> > location...if I had more money, I might think otherwise.
> > Regards,
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Michael Murray
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120236513887
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Don't delay, order today! - Suspect Auction

[Jason Utas]

Olah All,
Looks like a fresh mesosiderite.  I know, the shape is odd - but have
a look at fresh pieces of that Chinese mesosiderite fall Dong Umjim
Qui...or however it's spelled...they look rather similar to this,
though by the look of the orange crystals clearly visible on the
surface of this stone, this one has more olivine in it.
That said, it could also be an unusual piece of slag, and I don't feel
like betting $1k on such a strange piece from a questionable
location...if I had more money, I might think otherwise.
Regards,
Jason


On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Michael Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It might have helped the sale if the seller would have included a
> picture with some of the finer details.  I believe it will be
> interesting to see how much this one goes for.
> Mike in CO
>
> On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Michael Gilmer wrote:
> > Hi Folks!
> >
> > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120236513887
> >
> > If this is a meteorite, it's the UGLIEST meteorite
> > I have ever seen.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > MikeG
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __
> > __
> > Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of
> > Blockbuster Total Access now
> > http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text3.com
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Oriented Meteorite Pictures

[Jason Utas]

Hola All,
For those interested, I just uploaded a whole lot of new meteorite
pictures to my flickr account, available at the following url:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cameteoritefinder/sets/72157594532840297/

I would go straight to the 'meteorites' set; there are some other
pictures up, but I would assume they would be of litle interest.
My favorite oriented meteorite, and not without due reason:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cameteoritefinder/388638387/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Alright - there are many more, most in pretty good focus (there was
nice light outside today).  Taza, Gao, Ziz, Unclassified, Sikhotes
(some really crazy ones), a Millbillillie, etc.
I'll be getting more up as soon as possible, probably over the next
few months...photos of larger specimens to come.
Enjoy,
Jason
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] A new area to hunt?

[Jason Utas]

Well, E.P.,

I suppose the only trouble would be finding responsible meteorite
hunters who would hunt without disturbing the ancient designs (which
seems fairly hopeless given the historical record of treasure-seekers
in general).

Yes, there are a number of responsible hunters out there, but one must
recognize the fact that whenever a location becomes well-known,
fortune-seekers tend to come in and wreak their opportunistic havoc
(this can be most easily seen with Canyon Diablo - the reason why the
crater was initially closed was that originally, hunters had promised
to fill in the holes that they left behind for the safety of the
grazing cattle - it became a popular hunting site, people stopped
filling in holes, and the ranch was closed).  However, one can also
look at places like NWA, where a great deal of scientific information
is forever lost every time a stone is picked up without coordinates
being taken.  Yes, it would be a lot of trouble, especially if
meteorites are being picked up in great numbers, but at the same time,
more information would become known about meteorite and strewnfield
density over the surface of the earth.

Is what's being done 'bad?'  Well, scientifically speaking, yes.  If
the hunters of NWA actually took the time to record find information,
we would know more about meteorites than we do now.  It would take
longer to find all of what has been found already (at least decades),
but one should keep in mind that a few more decades for most
meteorites in NWA would do them little to no harm, and more of the
harder-to-find material would undoubtedly be unearthed if more
thorough methods were used to hunt.

I refuse to condemn it as a collector because it has benefited me
personally, and not insignificantly.  But from a purely scientific
point of view, it truly is a loss.

Would the same sort of willy-nilly collecting/abuse of knowledge occur
at Nazca?
Well, who knows.  All one can do is look at what has happened in the
past and try to guess at what would occur here.
As an aficionado of history and Native Americans, I would think that
you, E.P., would be against hunting in such an area, for if it proved
to be good meteorite territory, the precious 'drawings' would be
rapidly - if not destroyed - damaged by enthusiastic meteorite
hunters.

- And don't act the victim.  When you're the mean one on here, trying
to get sympathy out of people by tossing in little comments like that
just makes me (and I would think people in general) look at you in a
light even less favourable than before.

Jason



On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 3:51 PM, E.P. Grondine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> If what they say about the climate in this area is
> correct, then perhaps it could rival NWA for hunting:
>
> http://www.nazcamystery.com/palpa_valley.htm
>
> Re US 193: fpspace has links to observation sites for
> US 193, and links to ground images, and all the news
> flashes.
>
> final item, the note from Anne: thank you so much for
> the resource.  An idea which has caught my fancy for
> some time has been cyclic falls - not necessarily
> annual, but cyclic.  Imagine, knowing the Earth is
> going to intercept a stream, so just go outside in the
> evening and watch a nice one come in.
>
> Jason, you can be nasty now, if you want...
>
> good hunting,
> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
> 
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Washington Meteorite Map!

[Jason Utas]

Hola Chris, Eric, All,
Well, I would think that it would be all the more difficult due to the
snow on the ground; assuming that the fireball didn't terminate over
cleared land, the general Area (Northern Oregon to Southern
Washington, at elevations of ~2,000 ft+) are currently under two to
four feet of snow.
Good hunting?by the sound of it, not until early summer, at best...
Regards,
Jason

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Chris Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd say, looking at the data which has been published (and some that has
> not), that it is rather unlikely this fireball produced any meteorites.
> The high terminal explosion combined with a fairly steep descent angle
> are not promising indicators. It is virtually certain that nobody
> witnessed any impacts, of course.
>
> Chris
>
> *
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Eric Wichman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:52 PM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Washington Meteorite Map!
>
>
> > Resending earlier post that was not posted:
> >
> > I tried sending this to the list yesterday but I guess it didn't post
> > or I didn't see it. Anyway, here it is again...
> >
> > -BEGIN ORIGINAL MESSAGE SENT FEB 20th @
> > 1:18pm-
> >
> > After hearing the news about the meteor I figured I'd do some
> > research. I've compiled reports from all across the northwest from
> > newpapers, websites, videos, and eyewitness accounts of the fall. This
> > is what I came up with.
> >
> > www.meteoritewatch.com
>
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Wed Total Lunar Eclipse

[Jason Utas]

Hello All,
I managed to find a user on Flickr with a good set of shots - see here:

http://flickr.com/photos/apailthorp/2280482061/

If you click on 'All Sizes' just above the image, you get
full-sized...his/her shots have pretty good resolution.  There are
probably better out there, but this was as good as I saw while
browsing.
Regards,
Jason

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Michael Chamberlain
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clouds finally broke, very impressive clear full eclipse!!  What fun!!
>
> Mike
> San Francisco
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Greg Hupe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Robert Woolard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wed Total Lunar Eclipse
>
>
> > Hi Robert, Greg and List,
> >
> > I just walked outside my front door at 8:00 PM EST and front row seat in
> > front of me is a perfectly clear full moon. I hope the clouds stay away
> > for the big show starting in less than an hour.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Greg
> > Florida
> >
> > 
> > Greg Hupe
> > The Hupe Collection
> > NaturesVault (eBay)
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > www.LunarRock.com
> > IMCA 3163
> > 
> > Click here for my current eBay auctions:
> > http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Robert Woolard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Wed Total Lunar Eclipse
> >
> >
> >> Greg,
> >>
> >>  Thanks a lot for the link for all of us. Very nicely
> >> done! (The anchor for that news station better keep an
> >> eye out for you.  ;-)
> >>
> >>  Best wishes,
> >>  Robert Woolard
> >>
> >> --- Greg Redfern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Everyone,
> >>>
> >>>   I hope you don't mind but I invite you to look at
> >>> the link -
> >>>
> >> http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=5814119
> >>> to get some information of the 2-20-08 total lunar
> >>> eclipse. All times
> >>> are EST. Enjoy this great sky show as it is the last
> >>> until 12-21-10.
> >>>
> >>> Let me know how it looks to you.
> >>>
> >>> All the best,
> >>>
> >>> Greg
> >>>
> >>> Greg Redfern
> >>> NASA JPL Solar System Ambassador
> >>> http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/ambassador/index.html
> >>> WHAT'S UP?: THE SPACE PLACE
> >>> http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=600113&nid=421
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> >> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >> __
> >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> >> Meteorite-list mailing list
> >> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >>
> >
> >
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] final pics and tucson report

[Jason Utas]

Bob,
On the bottom of his message -

Steve R.Arnold,chicago,Ill,Usa!!
  The Asteroid Belt!
--->Chicagometeorites.net<---
 Collecting Meteorites since 06/19/1999
 Ebay I.D. Illinoismeteorites

...it does work.
Jason

On Feb 12, 2008 6:39 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve,
> As a courtesy to the rest of us, please have someone help you master the art 
> of copying and pasting links.
> That would be really convenient.
> Nice seeing you at the show
>
>  -- Original message --
> From: steve arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Good morning list.I just finished page 3 of my
> > pictures.12 more and 36 total.Thanks for the kind
> > words from those who have seen them.The 3 pages of
> > pictures of the show is my final report.Outside of
> > buying some oriented sikote-alins and 50 grams of
> > franconia irons,that was the last of everything I
> > bought.If anyone wants a pic of what you saw please
> > feel free to send you one.It was really good to see
> > most everyone again as well as meeting new
> > people.Always good to do.Oh well that is it.I have to
> > go deal with a flat tire now.Also for those that still
> > have dial up,I am sorry for the inconvience.Have a
> > great week all.I look forward to seeing you all again
> > next year,the good lord willing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   steve arnold,chicago
> >
> > Steve R.Arnold,chicago,Ill,Usa!!
> >The Asteroid Belt!
> >   Chicagometeorites.net
> >   Collecting Meteorites since 06/19/1999
> >   Ebay I.D. Illinoismeteorites
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] woman hit by meteorite?

[Jason Utas]

Hola Laurence, All,
Seems unlikely; here's a picture of the stone:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article93341.ece

Doesn't look very good...
Regards,
Jason

On Feb 11, 2008 10:16 PM, Laurence Garvie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was listening to the London news and they were discussing the
> following story.
>
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-12620274-details/Woman+hanging+out+washing+'hit+by+meteorite'/article.do
>
> Laurence
> meteorites.asu.edu
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] What Mars looks like under the impact dust

[Jason Utas]

Hola E.P., All,

> while in Tucson noticed its low density. I remember
> when Michael Casper let me handle one of the first new
> martian meteorites back in 1999, and my sudden
> understanding of exactly what 1/3 Earth's gravity
> really means.

Martian meteorites are as dense as earth rocks; the fact that Martian
gravity is 1/3 as strong as Earth's has only to do with Mars' smaller
radius.

They are simple basalts.  Although Martian rocks do tend to contain a
small amount of iron (enough to form a nice reddish rind on the vast
majority of Mars' surface over the past two billion years), they don't
contain as much iron as typical chondrites and thus feel lighter than
typical meteorites.

But keep in mind - if you pick up an earth basalt, they would be
approximately the same density.

Regards,
Jason


On Feb 11, 2008 10:18 AM, E.P. Grondine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Larry, Martin -
>
> Thanks for your responses, and thanks Martin for the
> link.
>
> I'm sure that anyone who had the privilege of handling
> Bruno Fectay's nice martian:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/arizonaviking2000/Tucsonshowandparty2008c081.jpg
>
> while in Tucson noticed its low density. I remember
> when Michael Casper let me handle one of the first new
> martian meteorites back in 1999, and my sudden
> understanding of exactly what 1/3 Earth's gravity
> really means.
>
> good hunting,
> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
>
>
>
>
>  
> 
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Re Aubrite

[Jason Utas]

Hola Pete, All,
It's a meteorite; it looks to be a piece of Allende or another CV3,
but it's certainly not an Aubrite, and is most likely not from
Australia (why would it be when it looks to be Allende...).
So...an expensive bit of Allende with a shiny tag.
Regards,
Jason

On Feb 5, 2008 12:43 PM, Pete Shugar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ160205758255
> Nice little gold colored tag next to the stone, which if it is not a true
> meteorite, then a very convincing fake. Looks to be a chondrite of some
> sort.
> Pete
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Re; Inexpensive Irons

[Jason Utas]

Hola Bob, E.P., All,
Hardly - the stuff they sell at the Meteor Crater store is shale.
They don't sell real meteorites on-site, though you can find freshly
dug-up irons on ebay from hunters for an average going price of
~$0.30/g.
You'd probably be best-off buying some Odessa nuggets or a lot of
those "Campo crystals" from Hans or another dealer who might have them
for cheaps; those, at least, would be real meteoric iron, and not just
oxide.
Or what about Sikhote shrapnel?  That tends to be fairly cheap...
Best of Luck,
Jason


On Feb 4, 2008 10:36 PM, Bob Loeffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks E.P.  I'll see if they can help me out.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of E.P.
> Grondine
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 9:33 AM
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Re; Inexpensive Irons
>
> Hi -
>
> The Barringer crater visitor center had some nice
> little bagged pieces - $2-$3? a bag, with slip.
>
> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
>
>
>
> 
> 
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Question about Jiddat al Harasis 073

[Jason Utas]

Hola Tracy, Ken, All,
Yes, the colour does look a bit off, but in this case I think it might
be due to odd photography - the specimens' textures actually look
meteoric and some of the pieces reflect light in a way that I would
expect from a weathered ordinary chondrite (oxidized metal appears to
be shining back in a few shots, etc).  What you take to be red flashes
I think could be colour-enhanced chondrules...
In general it's a good idea to be cautious, but I *think* those are
meteorites, and I've yet to be proven wrong on ebay.
That said, the seller is charging by the carat - it's a but much for
an ordinary chondrite...
Regards,
Jason

On Jan 28, 2008 11:04 AM, tracy latimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This seller is based in Thailand.  There are a bunch of good sellers 
> operating out of Thailand, the gem capital of the world (at least for the 
> moment), but there are MANY more bogus sellers of not-what-they-advertise.  
> Although this seller has a reasonable record, I have yet to see a meteorite 
> with gemmy red flashes; anyone remember the notorious "Emerald" meteorite(s)? 
>  I think they got some pretty rocks and slapped a "meteorite" label on them; 
> either that, or they were told this was a meteorite and took it at face 
> value.  Looks more like a ammolite, andesine, or other opalescent-type 
> terrestrial rock to me
>
> Tracy Latimer
>
> > Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:11:02 -0500
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > Subject: [meteorite-list] Question about Jiddat al Harasis 073
>
> >
> > List Members,
> > There is currently four eBay offerings of JaH 073 by seller
> > 'freakingcat_gems'.
> > http://tinyurl.com/25j4f6
> > I've not seen a 'meteorite' like this before, can anyone with a slice
> > confirm or debunk this?
> > And does anyone have a slice photo?
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Ken Newton
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> _
> Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail(R)-get your 
> "fix".
> http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] TKW help

[Jason Utas]

Hola Dave, All,
If you're making accurate labels, you might add 36kg to the tkw of
Tata (listed at 113 kg) - and make that two pieces found, as opposed
to one.
Kem Kem...I have no idea.
Regards,
Jason

On 26 Jan 2008 16:41:59 UT,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi David and List,
>
> "Does anyone have the total known weight of Kem Kem and
> Tata? I'm updating labels and cannot find the info anywhere."
>
> If Kem Kem is NWA 1198, a eucrite, it's TKW = 14 gr; 1 piece; Met.Bull. 87
> If Tata is NWA 1430, a IIIAB iron, it's TKW = 113 kg; 1 piece; Met.Bull. 87
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bernd
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] What Kind Of NWA Is This?

[Jason Utas]

Hello Eric,
>From the pictures, it's hard to tell, but I would say that it is most
likely an ordinary chondrite.  That said, the pictures aren't clear
enough to tell for certain - to me it almost looks a little bit like a
CR2, but I would only be able to tell with a) the stone in my hands or
b) pictures of a cut surface.
Jason

On Jan 23, 2008 12:05 PM, Eric Wichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> I've got an Unclassified NWA that looks different than any other
> material I have in my collection. This 11 gram piece is very
> different than the fractured, and common desert varnished "cheap
> stuff" that I've seen.
>
> Can anyone tell me if this looks familiar? What kind of NWA is this?
>
> http://www.meteoritewatch.com/images/nwa/DSCN0556.jpg
>
> http://www.meteoritewatch.com/images/nwa/DSCN0557.jpg
>
> http://www.meteoritewatch.com/images/nwa/DSCN0558.jpg
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Chat

[Jason Utas]

Hola All,
This was as close as I could get:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.meteoritearticles.com/chatroom.html

But the java programs don't seem to initiate correctly - at least, not for me.
Anyone else have any luck?
Regards,
Jason

On Jan 13, 2008 3:03 PM, dean bessey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I havent been able to find Mark's chat site lately. In
> fact I think his whole site is offline and he seems to
> be missing and I havent been able to contact him in
> several months.
> Hopfully he is OK.
> Sincerely
> DEAN
>
>
> --- Christian Anger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > anybody in Marc's chatroom ?
> >
> > Please let me know how to get in, I lost the
> > adrress,
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > I.M.C.A. #2673 at www.imca.cc
> > website: www.austromet.com
> >
> > Ing. Christian Anger
> > Korngasse 6
> > 2405 Bad Deutsch-Altenburg
> > AUSTRIA
> >
> > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
>
>
>  
> 
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] intriguing Question

[Jason Utas]

Hola Peter, All,
I know individual aspect of your questions have been addressed, but
I'd like to as well...

>I know the Sahara desert is about a galgillion square miles.
Then there are the deserts in Calif., South America, the Antarctic continent
and God only knows where else. Why don't I see any meteorites from the
Gobi desert, or maybe the Mongolia desert.

Well, yeah, it's big.  But the main reason that there are more
meteorites found in the Sahara than elsewhere is because there are
more people looking.  There are just as many martian and lunar
meteorites elsewhere, but they tend to be harder to recognize due to
harder hunting terrain (similar rocks, etc) - and because there are
probably twenty or so meteorite hunters in the southwest who get out
into the wilderness with some frequency - probably a few more, since
Franconia became popular.  Compared to the undefined number of hunters
who have been scouring the Sahara for the past decade, well, it's just
not much of a comparison.
Same goes for South America, though Antarctica has seen a good deal of
thorough hunting, as results would suggest.

>And then there is little dinky Roosevelt Co, NM at just 2,455 sq
miles and it has a
staggering
109 meteorites, which comes to one for every 22.5 sq miles. What gives?

This is due to, as has been said, the hunting of Skip Wilson, who has
spent years in the area, hunting blowout after blowout with remarkable
success.  A good bit of hunting land paired with his diligence has
turned up pretty spectacular results...
That said, the density of meteorites that actually exist on the land
should be, at the very least, several per square mile; yes, many have
been found, but there are still countless more waiting to be
discovered.

>They are of a wide variety of classifications, so it can't be turning
every piece in
for classification. I can't speak for anyone else, but I find this
very puzzling.

I don't see why he couldn't be turning every stone in for
classification; data gathered suggest that smaller falls would be more
common than larger ones, and this would mean that the majority of
falls would consist of small, individual stones.

I also don't know how many of his finds have been paired with one
another, but I have the feeling that if he has been concentrating on
individual areas (as opposed to moving on whenever he finds a
meteorite), it would stand to reason that he has found at least a few
paired meteorites, whether or not they are listed as such in the
catalogue.

Regards,
Jason

On Jan 9, 2008 7:01 PM, Peter A Shugar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm the newbie, so please explain this to me. This is an intriguing question.
> I can't figure it out. I know the Sahara desert is about a galgillion square 
> miles.
> Then there are the deserts in Calif., South America, the Antarctic continent
> and God only knows where else. Why don't I see any meteorites from the
> Gobi desert, or maybe the Mongolia desert.
> And then there is little dinky Roosevelt Co, NM at just 2,455 sq miles and it 
> has a
> staggering
> 109 meteorites, which comes to one for every 22.5 sq miles. What gives?
> They are of a wide variety of classifications, so it can't be turning every 
> piece in
> for classification. I can't speak for anyone else, but I find this very 
> puzzling.
> Any thoughts, List?
> Pete
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Fwd: Meteorite crater mystery/trip

[Jason Utas]

Whoops - first time this went out, my email was set to rich-formatting
it for some reason.
In case that doesn't go through, here's a plain version.

-- Forwarded message --

Hola Graham, All,
Been busy with college apps these past few weeks, and am getting
caught up with emails right now...

Well, there are a few options, all of which are in southern Mongolia:

1) Tabun-Khara-Obo Meteorite Crater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun-Khara-Obo_crater

2) Possible meteorite crater I marked more than a year ago.

44.03.53N  98.59.11E

3) And another.

46.02.52N 99.23.05E

Much of the area isn't imaged in good-enough quality to make for
worthwhile looking (at least in my free version of Google Earth), but
I've yet to try Worldwind...

Regards,
Jason



On Jan 9, 2008 6:39 PM, ensoramanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Can anyone help to identify the structure I photographed in the link at
> the end of this post?
>
> I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year.  I have just managed
> to plough through the huge backlog of posts from everyone after a 5 week
> trip to Australia via Hongkong. I managed to visit many meteorite
> related sites on the journey...the Cranbourne strewn field and display
> just south of Melbourne...passed by Pinnaroo and Karoonda and through to
> Adelaide for a look at their huge Mundrabilla and a great meteorite
> display...then drove on up for a walk around the Henbury Craters and
> Alice Springs...another good display there at the Museum in the Cultural
> centre...fantastic selection of Henburys. The second part of the trip
> was  on the West coast  and Perthanother amazing museum full of
> space rocks there...with the other large Mundrabilla alongside many
> others from the Nullabor. Futher north we had a good day walking around
> the Pinacles..a very surreal landscape and the site of another meteorite
> find.  All in all a memorable trip with loads of photographs and 3000
> miles of driving!. I will try and upload some of the collections we
> visited and post links if anybody is interested.
>
> Anyway...back to the original request.  On the Dec 1st flight out to Oz
> we passed over northern China...a wonderful view of the mountains and
> deserts from 35000 ft. Again I took far too many photographs out of the
> plane window...but caught this shot of a very interesting structure,
> which looks incredibly like a huge impact crater or astobleme to me. I
> have not been able to confirm what it is and wondered if anyone else on
> the list had ever seen it or could identify it? Been trying google earth
> but no luck yet. The scale can be judged to some extent by the small
> settlement nearer the foreground.
>
> Here's the link...
>
> http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o43/LaburnumStudio/Craters/Crater-.jpg
>
> Hope those of you heading for Tucson this time have as good a time as I
> had last year. Sadly I cant make it.
>
> Regards
>
> Graham Ensor, Nr Barwell UK.
>
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Carrying idiots to Newcastle (and back)

[Jason Utas]

E.P.,

I said I wouldn't argue the point anymore, but this is just insulting
- after I say I'm to leave, you repeatedly bash me?  You're going into
overkill here - one might almost think you're compensating for your
own beliefs with this little romp-around.

Sterling himself just told you that the neutron release from an impact
would be negligible compared to the levels about which you've been
talking.
He's the one disagreeing with you at this point; I've already told you
that I've had enough of this idiotic discussion; as Darren (not
'Darryl,' as you incorrectly noted) put it, it's nothing but a waste
of time to try to explain to you what the concept of 'proof' means, so
there's no point in perpetuating your idiocy for all to read.  I had
enough of this BS - if you want more of my end, by all means, try to
draw me out, but, to be perfectly frank, I feel much less inclined to
keep this argument even remotely civil given what you've just said.

At this point, it's clear; the only person here who knows less than
impacts (out of the three of us) than me, is you, and I'm sure that if
anyone else saw any insanity in my so-called ravings, etc, etc, I'm
sure they'd tell me - they've certainly known me for long enough.
Whereas I admitted that my knowledge was limited, and based on my
understanding of Physics B (no calculus involved, though I'm learning
that in another class), you failed to provide any mathematical or
otherwise relevant credentials on your part when confronted with the
question, ignoring it completely, as I'm sure you will again should
you reply to this message (though now that I've said this, you might
actually deal with it - who knows?).

Though I'm glad you saw the need to apologize...even if you did it for
the wrong person.

I'll round this off with two quotes I think you should actually read,
whether or not you decide to read whatever else I've written over the
past week in the near future.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
Euripides (484 BC - 406 BC)

I'd say this is it for me, but if you continue with your...I have no
other way of describing it other than 'immature' - messages (there's a
reason no one is standing up and agreeing with you on any point you've
so far put forth, in case you might not have noticed this *fact*), I
probably will reply, seeing as we've left the arena of scientific
discussion and you've now successfully, as I'm sure you wanted,
brought it to blows.

Jason

On Dec 25, 2007 10:26 PM, E.P. Grondine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> For those trying to work out the pathology of Jason's
> mental defect, consider his claim here:
>
> >And you call me biasedmaybe to the 'theory' that
> KE = 1/2mv^2, I suppose.
> >I've only been arguing based on impact dynamics and
> >known facts.
>
> You know and I know and (nearly) everyone else here
> knows that Jason's understanding of impact dynamics is
> nil, zero, zip, nada. Sterling has been through them
> with him again and again and again and again and
> again, and they still don't sink in - as for some
> strange reason Jason thinks that he already knows
> them.
>
> As Jason's obliviousness extends to the hard data, I
> give up. Not another minute of my time.
>
> As Jason's ravings are not only interfering with the
> Arctic Iron search, but have also taken away important
> space for commercial notices, my apologies not only to
> the hunters but to the dealers here as well.
>
> good hunting, and a prosperous new year to all,
> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
> 
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Stuff

[Jason Utas]

Hola All,
1) Thanks Darren, and others who messaged me in private.
2) Pete,
By making such a message public, you most certainly meant it to be
offensive; otherwise, you would have addressed it privately.  You
meant for everyone to see it, whether or not you gave the post
adequate thought before posting it...

That said, what I've been saying all along is that one simply can't
draw solid conclusions from a *lack of evidence.*
I haven't had any premeditated ideas about what caused these dust
layers/extinctions.  I openly admitted several times that I have no
bloody idea what did it.  I do, however, know some statistics, as well
as physics, both of which point towards certain scenarios being either
highly unlikely or, physically speaking, impossible.
I'm not saying that certain events didn't necessarily happen.  In most
cases, it's easy enough to say that the observed effects do not match
a given possibility for what did, according to E.P., occur.

My issue isn't with such events occurring (unless we're talking about
a 1km body vaporizing like Tunguska, because, in terms of physics, I
simply don't see why such a body would vaporize before striking the
ground), but rather with the fact that he isn't looking at evidence
objectively, and also isn't being open-minded when it comes to all of
the possible scenarios that could create the observed geologic
results.

Because of a lack of solid evidence for any conclusion at this point
in time, simply put, no firm conclusions can be drawn.
And you call me biasedmaybe to the 'theory' that KE = 1/2mv^2, I suppose.
I've only been arguing based on impact dynamics and known facts.
E.P., in case you didn't notice, was the one pulling airbursts and
craters out from 'twixt his cheeks.
Admittedly, some of what I said could probably have been
better-explained, and I did mix-up 30 degrees from horizontal vs
vertical, but even Sterling made some mistakes in the discussion; it's
complex stuff that not many of us deal with on a day-to-day basis, and
as such, I'm of the opinion that ideas should be thrown around - with
the general acceptance that such ideas are nothing more than theory
and are in no way to be called 'facts.'  Because saying that would be
*wrong.*

I love how you refer to me in the third-person as well...I find
it...interesting.

Merry Christmas,
Jason


On Dec 24, 2007 7:35 PM, Peter A Shugar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was not meant to offensive, but more of a comment on his stubborn refusal
> to look at tons of evidence that is so contrary to only his view. Or put this 
> way,
> Jason against the world. If you can't convince the world to adopt your way of
> seeing things, then maybe it's time for you to change your views. This "the 
> whole
> world but me is wrong" is a refusal to adapt and mayhap even learn something.
> Just watching and reading the MANY comments has given me a education I never
> could have afforded to go to college for.
> I do not want to sound as if I am a know-it-all because I am not. I want to 
> learn, so
> when I bring my meteorite collection to school, I can make a presentation 
> that will both
> instruct and inspire the kids to want to learn more. In order to do this I 
> need to be
> willing
> to CHANGE MY MIND when the facts don't fit my way of thinking. This means to 
> change
> the way I view the theory instead of trying to make the theory fit my point 
> of view.
> If I can not adapt to this new theory, then I will admit to being two tacos 
> and a
> burrito
> short of a combination plate myself. In addition, I will admit to being a 
> stubborn old
> Coot.
> .I will apologize to the extent that I didn't mean to hurt him, but maybe to 
> jar him
> into listening
> and becoming more rational in his reasoning.
> Pete
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Jason

[Jason Utas]

I would say that if you don't care enough to involve yourself in the
discussion - or know little enough about the subject to participate,
that one should simply refrain from throwing comments like that around
- say, those that pertain to nothing other than personal jibes.

Over here we would call that being obnoxious.

Jason

On Dec 24, 2007 6:25 PM, Bob WALKER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Listoids
>
> over here in oz we say:
>
> - a six pack short of a carton; or
> - some kangaros loose in the top paddock
>
>
> Meaning, what exactly?
>
> On Dec 24, 2007 6:01 PM, Peter A Shugar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sterling,
> > Is it just me? Or is jason about two tacos and a burrito short of a
> > combination plate?
> > Pete
> > __
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] ARCTIC IRONS, was Mammoth Stew, etc

[Jason Utas]

Hola Sterling,

Not exactly what I meant - more along the lines of the data used to
obtain it, not what source you cited (thanks, but I did read it - and
you used it, hence the 'yours,' and the "I don't know where you got
it" referred to the data used to obtain the reference...but fine, jump
on me if you wish to attempt to discredit me without addressing the
point), but the fact still remains; a list member just emailed me
saying that he had 6 irons unclassified that would remain as such
indefinitely, in addition to those about which I had known beforehand.

The fact of the matter is that, although I don't disagree with the
majority of your email from before, that many people simply assume
that irons are more common than they in all likelihood, actually are.
They are regarded as common because more are found, but with regards
to the number that actually fall, I believe that many people have
something of a misconception based on biased 'find'/'found fall'
statistics.

There is also no known (as far as I know) reason to suggest that they
would be transported any less effectively when encased in ice/snow
than stones, though maybe you can find one.

Regards,
Jason

On Dec 24, 2007 5:45 PM, Sterling K. Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, Jason, List,
>
> Jason wrote:
> > I don't know where you get your .2% figure, but it's wrong.
>
>Well, it's in the quote from one of the sources I provided
> you with in the original email (below). It would probably help if
> you actually READ the Post before disagreeing with it. The
> source was Dr. Svend Buhl. He's on the List, so maybe you
> could ask (politely) how he derived the 0.2% figure?
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> -----
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jason Utas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Meteorite-list" 
>
> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 7:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] ARCTIC IRONS, was Mammoth Stew, etc
>
>
> Hello Sterling, All,
> I don't know where you get your .2% figure, but it's wrong.
> They may consist of .2% of submitted finds, but I know of at least
> forty or so irons that have yet to be submitted, in a number of
> peoples' hands.
> Out of the five or so thousand meteorites yet submitted, they alone
> would constitute nearly one percent, to say nothing of the countless
> irons that I have never seen or heard of.
> Regards,
> Jason
>
> On Dec 24, 2007 4:46 PM, Sterling K. Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi, Jason, List,
> >
> > > I would dispute this claim [NWA depletion]
> > > ... irons compose ~1.8 percent of finds...
> >
> >NWA iron finds are 0.2% in contrast to Antarctica's
> > 1.8%. Sounds "depleted" (89% depletion) to me. That
> > the Antarctic iron find percentage is "typical" of the planet
> > is not so absolutely clear cut. Take your pick:
> >
> > "First, the very strongest meteorite type, metallic iron,
> > makes up only about 3 percent of the falls, but at least
> > 30 percent of the finds..." -- John S. Lewis, UofAZ
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=k9hwi3ktye8C&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=meteorite+irons+percent+of+finds&source=web&ots=ph81fSImWj&sig=I4xsgM6wBgZ5sgXhOn34Tbi15h0
> >
> > http://www.amsmeteors.org/fireball/faqf.html
> > says 2% of falls and 28% of finds...
> >
> > http://earthsci.org/fossils/space/craters/met/met.html
> > "5.7 percent of meteorite falls are irons."
> >
> > http://wapi.isu.edu/geo_pgt/Mod05_Meteorites_Ast/mod5.htm
> > "only about 3 percent of all observed falls are irons"
> >
> > http://www.niger-meteorite-recon.de/en/story4.htm
> > "The ratio of iron meteorites compared with the
> > total number of falls is around 4 percent. As a
> > matter of fact the fraction of irons compared to
> > the total number of meteorites recovered from the
> > African deserts is only 0.2 percent. Until today
> > the enigmatic missing of the desert irons is an
> > unsolved question. Provided that the pre-Islamic
> > inhabitants of the Sahara, like their northern European
> > contemporaries, collected and traded meteoritic
> > iron as a raw material over longer periods then
> > one has an indication for the loss of these irons.
> > For in the region of the Air Mountains the first
> > iron arrow- and harpoon points are documented
> > as early as 2,400 B.C.. Thus there is a period of
> > more than 4,000 years until today in which the
> > early nomads could have harvested the meteo

Re: [meteorite-list] Jason

[Jason Utas]

Meaning, what exactly?

On Dec 24, 2007 6:01 PM, Peter A Shugar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sterling,
> Is it just me? Or is jason about two tacos and a burrito short of a 
> combination plate?
> Pete
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] ARCTIC IRONS, was Mammoth Stew, etc

[Jason Utas]

Hello Sterling, All,
I don't know where you get your .2% figure, but it's wrong.
They may consist of .2% of submitted finds, but I know of at least
forty or so irons that have yet to be submitted, in a number of
peoples' hands.
Out of the five or so thousand meteorites yet submitted, they alone
would constitute nearly one percent, to say nothing of the countless
irons that I have never seen or heard of.
Regards,
Jason

On Dec 24, 2007 4:46 PM, Sterling K. Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, Jason, List,
>
> > I would dispute this claim [NWA depletion]
> > ... irons compose ~1.8 percent of finds...
>
>NWA iron finds are 0.2% in contrast to Antarctica's
> 1.8%. Sounds "depleted" (89% depletion) to me. That
> the Antarctic iron find percentage is "typical" of the planet
> is not so absolutely clear cut. Take your pick:
>
> "First, the very strongest meteorite type, metallic iron,
> makes up only about 3 percent of the falls, but at least
> 30 percent of the finds..." -- John S. Lewis, UofAZ
> http://books.google.com/books?id=k9hwi3ktye8C&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=meteorite+irons+percent+of+finds&source=web&ots=ph81fSImWj&sig=I4xsgM6wBgZ5sgXhOn34Tbi15h0
>
> http://www.amsmeteors.org/fireball/faqf.html
> says 2% of falls and 28% of finds...
>
> http://earthsci.org/fossils/space/craters/met/met.html
> "5.7 percent of meteorite falls are irons."
>
> http://wapi.isu.edu/geo_pgt/Mod05_Meteorites_Ast/mod5.htm
> "only about 3 percent of all observed falls are irons"
>
> http://www.niger-meteorite-recon.de/en/story4.htm
> "The ratio of iron meteorites compared with the
> total number of falls is around 4 percent. As a
> matter of fact the fraction of irons compared to
> the total number of meteorites recovered from the
> African deserts is only 0.2 percent. Until today
> the enigmatic missing of the desert irons is an
> unsolved question. Provided that the pre-Islamic
> inhabitants of the Sahara, like their northern European
> contemporaries, collected and traded meteoritic
> iron as a raw material over longer periods then
> one has an indication for the loss of these irons.
> For in the region of the Air Mountains the first
> iron arrow- and harpoon points are documented
> as early as 2,400 B.C.. Thus there is a period of
> more than 4,000 years until today in which the
> early nomads could have harvested the meteoritic
> iron from its deposits."
>
>
> The American Meteor Society FAQ, posted on
> http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc062398.html
> by Ron Baalke:
> "Meteoroids of asteroid origin make up only a small
> percentage (about 5%) of the overall meteoroid
> population, which is primarily cometary in nature."
> Note that this is "meteoroid," not "meteorite."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=DIppUb33M8UC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=meteorite+irons+percent+of+finds&source=web&ots=qIif2Elw5U&sig=wd3x_-gSl6QYgrDyDTZIsTAFekg#PPA24,M1
> claims the percentage of iron finds is greater
> in the Western Hemisphere. E. J. Opik's
> "Physics of Meteor Flight in the Atmosphere."
> Tennesse is a good example of the phenomenon.
>
>
> Since we know that irons are preferrentially removed
> by man over historic time periods, it is hard to explain
> any percentage higher than Antarctica's "pristine" and
> ungathered 1.8%. Preferential removal should LOWER
> the percentage, not raise it.
>
>It may be that irons are harder to spot in Antarctic
> glaciated "Blue Ice" environments than stones, or it may
> be that since all Antarctic meteorites are discovered as
> a result of a complicated ice-flow and wind-esposure
> transport interaction that the more dense irons do not
> "transport" as well, or it may be that Antarctica is
> "depleted" in irons for some reason no one's thought
> of yet.
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> 
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Jason Utas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Meteorite-list" 
> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 5:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] ARCTIC IRONS, was Mammoth Stew, etc
>
>
> Hola All,
>
> Sterling, you said:
>
> >The distribution (or relative absence) of irons in NWA material shows
> that there is no doubt that the NWA area was "cleaned out" of most of
> the iron meteorites that could be found thousands of years ago.  Of
> course, they missed a few.  But if the NWA meteorites reflected the
> "normal" distribution of irons and stones, there would be many, many
&g

Re: [meteorite-list] ARCTIC IRONS, was Mammoth Stew, etc

[Jason Utas]

Hola All,

Sterling, you said:

>The distribution (or relative absence) of irons in NWA material shows
that there is no doubt that the NWA area was "cleaned out" of most of
the iron meteorites that could be found thousands of years ago.  Of
course, they missed a few.  But if the NWA meteorites reflected the
"normal" distribution of irons and stones, there would be many, many
more irons.

Based on Antarctic findings, which are supposedly unbiased, I would
dispute this claim.  In the Antarctic, irons compose ~1.8 percent of
finds, and I see no reason for this to be an incorrect representation
of fall statistics.
When looking at fall statistics, one must keep in mind that an iron
would still be more recognizable than a stone, and as such, would be
more likely to be picked up.
Thus, even fall statistics are undoubtedly biased towards irons,
whereas Antarctic find statistics should be rather more correct,
rendering this 'Saharan clearing of irons,' although possible, much
less influential with regard to their percentage of total finds.

Regards,
Jason

On Dec 24, 2007 3:12 PM, Sterling K. Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, All,
>
>You couldn't ask for a less likely place to search for iron
> meteorites than the Canadian Arctic. First, a great deal of
> Canadian Arctic surficial material was "pushed" far south by
> those glaciers; there's a nice "car-eating" three-ton chunk of
> Canada on the road about a quarter-mile from my house (Illinois).
> Then, there's Bigger-Than-Biblical Floods at the end of glaciations,
> which would disperse the material remains (meteorites) of an
> impact. Then, there's those Jack-Daw Humans, picking them
> all up and using the iron for tools!
>
>About four years ago I posted to the List a reference to a paper
> by a group of archaeologists at one of Canada's national museums
> (which now I can't find, of course), documenting the distribution of
> pre-Columbian iron artifacts all across the ancient Eastern Arctic.
> Analysis of the material used showed that most, but not all of them
> came from the great Greenland irons (Cape York).  Almost found it:
> short report full of other referrences here:
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988Metic..23R.288M
>
>The age of the sites shows that the Greenland irons were being
> used for tools as early as 1300-1200 BC and the tools from it were
> spread out over 800 miles away from Cape York! Curiously,
> this makes the Neolithic North's iron tools pretty much the same
> age as first iron "tools" (weapons) in the "Cradle of Civilization"
> (the Hittites), which raises some interesting questions about the
> meaning of progress, innovation, and that "civilization" thing...
>
>Clearly, if iron meteorites from an ancient impact covered that
> portion of Canada, they would have been used also. If an ancient
> (33,000 BP) iron impactor had struck the ice cap and was the same
> compositional type as Cape York, they could be in that material,
> One of eleven ancient tools recently analyzed was from a different
> meteorite than Cape York, so we know there was another source in
> the extreme East Canadian Arctic (not Disko Island telluric iron
> either).
>
>The terrestrial age of Cape York is not known. Buchwald only
> says it is at least 2,000 years, but could be "10,000's of years."
> We tend not to think of the giant Cape Yorks as mere cast-off
> fragments of a bigger impact object, but they could be, of course.
> If the giant meteorites were being used for tool material, obviously
> all smaller pieces of the same material would have been used first,
> before undertaking the effort of beating chunks off the giants. Not
> an easy task.
>
>The distribution (or relative absence) of irons in NWA material
> shows that there is no doubt that the NWA area was "cleaned out"
> of most of the iron meteorites that could be found thousands of years
> ago.  Of course, they missed a few.  But if the NWA meteorites
> reflected the "normal" distribution of irons and stones, there would
> be many, many more irons.
>
>Finding any Arctic Canada iron meteorites may be impossible,
> if you consider that thousands of years of gathering by sharp-eyed
> locals intimately familiar with the region may have worked the ground
> first!
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> ---
> - Original Message -
> From: "E.P. Grondine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew, Jason stops
>
>
> Hi Jason, all -
>
> Glad to hear you're done. That makes for a Merry
> Christmas indeed! I and others will be working on
> possible neutron flux from large hyper velocity
> impacts over the next few days, and its nice to know
> that you won't be distracting us with dribble.
>
> Now as for your latest nonsense:
>
> "But the fact of the matter is that you can't prove
> "that either an airburst or ice-impact occurred
> "without, in all likelihood,

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew: end

[Jason Utas]

E.P.,
After reading your last post, I've simply come to decide that this is
no longer worth the time.
Your selective replies, paired with your faulty logic - and failure to
even think or reason in a logical manner has left me with little hope
of ever bringing you to your senses.
I met with a few meteorite enthusiasts today, and those that had
followed along were generally of the same opinion as those who have
sent me emails, all of which generally stated that I wouldn't get
anywhere by trying to use reason on you.

I need only to point out a single question that you asked of me to
destroy your entire argument: "What other possibilities are there for
either set of data?"
The answer: I don't know.
I honestly can't give you one.  But the fact of the matter is that you
can't prove that either an airburst or ice-impact occurred without, in
all likelihood, several years, if not decades of intense geological
field studies, and this seems to be the point on which our
methodologies differ.
You say "there's cosmic dust, and no crater - must be an airburst or
ice impact."
I say, "there's cosmic dust and no crater - must be...well, we don't
know for sure quite what yet, but we have some good ideas, and given
time, we'll see."

Your use of questionable evidence such as native american stories and
those mammoth tusks with bits of iron in them (you used them as though
they consisted of reputable evidence for the formation of the 31kBCE
dust layer in your last email, when we've already proven that this
cannot be the case...the same goes for so much more of your
evidence...phew), in the face of your simple lack of any good evidence
supporting either of your impact/airburst theories just isn't
something that I feel need to be addressed further; they say enough on
their own.

I can go on, but I won't.  Reply if you will; I know that everyone
else on here is with me and awaits your reply, if not with a smile at
what you'll say, then with a smile for no other reason than that they
won't have to worry their delete button for much longer.

Merry Christmas,
Jason

On Dec 22, 2007 10:37 AM, E.P. Grondine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> So we have a mammoth leg boiling on the fire. We now
> have to get it off, and its hot.
>
> > The only person in denial here is you, who refuses
> to > accept the fact that he can't possibly know with
> any
> > certainty what sort of cosmic cataclysms caused
> > either dust layer.
>
> There's one dust layer (10,900 BCE) and a rain of
> molten iron (31,000 BCE)
>
> >Ahhh, right.  You go believe that.  Darren's post
> sums >up just about everyone else's opinion of that as
> well.
> >Legends are not science.  They tend to have somewhat
> >historical roots, but we're talking about science
> >here, not a picture book about native american
> >storytelling.
>
> The complete inability of Europeans to realize the
> extent of the oral corpus is remarkable. Historical
> traditions are usually lumped together with
> instructional tales for children, amusing jokes,
> romances, hunting adventures, etc...
>
> Think of it as a library, instead.
>
> >What you have is a lack of proof for any known impact
> > process, and you seem to want to attribute that to
> an
> > airburst.
>
> Sterling brought up airburst as a teaching aid, I
> didn't. Were their also airbursts at the same time as
> the massive impact(s) around 10,900 BCE? In my
> opinion,
> yes.
>
> The only proof Jason will accept is large holes in the
> ground, or burnt bones. The indisputable
> extra-terrestrial markers just don't sink in. That's
> "Denial" with a capital D.
>
> I observed earlier that in science, we don't mistate
> evidence in order to invalidate a hypothesis; we also
> don't mistate hyposthesis in order to invalidate them.
> To which Jason replied:
>
> >You're not saying anything here.  The point is that
> >you have no evidence.  No evidence =/= airburst.
> >I think you're going to find it hard to get me to
> >believe much of what you say - especially when the
> >sole things that my beliefs are grounded in are
> >logic, the laws of science, and mathematics.
>
> I would suggest that denial plays the main role in
> Jaon's thinking. As far as his "beliefs" go, I don't
> know if he's even gotten to the point of understanding
> English rationalism.
>
> > I have acknowledged multiple times that I see the
> ice > impact as a (an albeit unlikely) possible
> explanation > for the geologic evidence that has been
> found.
> > I repeatedly state that the ice impact is a
> > possibility - you're the one who expected to find a
> > crater given the evidence already discovered.
>
> >You failed to include above the quote that clearly
> > stated that you believed that a crater exists to be
> > found.  Maybe you've changed your point of view; I
> > don't know, but you clearly stated that you believed
> > that a crater exists to be found.
>
> After all of this, Jason understands ice cratering,
> though he still thinks boths impacts were "unlikely",
>

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew - let leg simmer on fire in skin

[Jason Utas]

E.P., All,

> >To be perfectly frank, I've had enough of you, but I
> >do like getting the last word in, so here you go.
>
> Why do I have this feeling that this will not be the
> last word we hear from Jason?

Probably because we've not seen the last of you either; you're doing
the same thing ;)

> >Notice how no one else is agreeing with you.
>
> Yeah, I noticed that Sterling and a few others have
> already responded to Jason's multiple misconceptions
> about impact processes, but Jason seems to have
> fixated on me. Now if he only had tits...

Sterling and I have come to a sort of agreement, in case you've missed
it, but I really included the gist of it in my last email - in any
case, it should be below, if you included my entire post in your
response.
Damn straight - I'm so hot even middle-aged guys wish I had tits.
Hmmm, this is getting awkward

> >At least everyone else can see what a fool you're
> >making of yourself...
>
> Apparently Jason has not bothered to consider the
> alternative hypothesis that it might be the other way
> around.

Well I've had a few messages of support from list members as well as
an email from a world-renowned expert on meteorites, stating that I
was being "too generous" with my critiques, so I think you're mistaken
here - as much as elsewhere.
Go read Darren's post if you don't believe me.

> >The only person in denial here is you, who refuses to
> >accept the fact that he can't possibly know with any
> >certainty what sort of cosmic cataclysms caused
> either >dust layer.
>
> Apparently Jason ignored the Native American's
> memories  of the Holocene Start Impacts which I posted
> here a while back.

Ahhh, right.  You go believe that.  Darren's post sums up just about
everyone else's opinion of that as well.
Legends are not science.  They tend to have somewhat historical roots,
but we're talking about science here, not a picture book about native
american storytelling.

> And in this post, Jason once again demonstrates his
> complete inability to differentiate between the
> holocene start impacts and the mammoth pepperer.
>
> >What you have is a lack of proof for any known impact
> >process, and you seem to want to attribute that to an
> >airburst. In science, we just don't do that.
>
> In science, we don't mistate evidence in order to
> invalidate a hypothesis; we also don't mistate
> hyposthesis in order to invalidate them.

You're not saying anything here.  The point is that you have no
evidence.  No evidence =/= airburst.  It doesn't matter what you say
if there's nothing behind it.
You keep saying that you have evidence for an airburst; what is your
definitive evidence?  By all means, tell us all right now...

> Why is Jason reading what he wants to believe, instead
> of what is actually written? Denial.

Well, besides that fact that I've come to understand that what you
write tends to be quite akin in quality (scientifically speaking) to
the children's book rather aptly named 'Cloudy With a Chance of
Meatballs,' I think you're going to find it hard to get me to believe
much of what you say - especially when the sole things that my beliefs
are grounded in are logic, the laws of science, and mathematics.

> > Which means that you expect a large, thirty-thousand
> > year old crater to exist somewhere on the continent.
>
> Sterling gave Jason a few minutes of his time and went
> through ice impact with him, but that seems to have
> gone in one of Jason's ears and out the other, with
> nothing there to stop it.

I have acknowledged multiple times that I see the ice impact as a (an
albeit unlikely) possible explanation for the geologic evidence that
has been found.
You accuse me of misinterpreting what you wrote; why don't you try
reading the emails that I've sent you to begin with?  I repeatedly
state that the ice impact is a possibility - you're the one who
expected to find a crater given the evidence already discovered.

You failed to include above the quote that clearly stated that you
believed that a crater exists to be found.  Maybe you've changed your
point of view; I don't know, but you clearly stated that you believed
that a crater exists to be found.

That said, as no definitive evidence for an ice impact has been found,
it is impossible to state that this is without a doubt what caused the
layer of dust/extinctions.  There may or may not be any definitive
evidence to find, but we're talking about science here, not religion.
Just because we don't have a solid explanation yet doesn't mean that a
particular one of the countless possibilities that could explain it
(however likely it is to have generated the effects seen) is certainly
the right one.

> >I can calculate KE, and am taking calculus, as well
> as >Physics B.
>
> Some teachers out there have my deepest condolences.

Haha, right - interesting how you cut out the rest of what I said and
moved on.
You might try gaining some credibility by saying something about your
own self, if there's anything there t

Re: [meteorite-list] Mmammoth Stew...lies, etc

[Jason Utas]

E.P.

To be perfectly frank, I've had enough of you, but I do like getting
the last word in, so here you go.

> "If you stopped lying - and maybe started obeying the
> "laws of physics, scientific method, not to mention
> " basic logic, we might get somewhere.
>
> Thanks for the compliment, Jason. I don't think "we"
> are going to be able to get anywhere.

You did lie.  Here's your quote for the rest of the people who may or
may not be following along:

1) E.P. Stated that:

"It seems to me that the cores of the cometissimals in
a comet have a nice metal content. That's where the
iridium is, after all."

2) I stated that:

We don't know much about cometary composition, but
there's no reason (at all) to suspect that they
formed around iron cores,

3) In response, E.P. stated that:

"I never said that."

--

You don't even try to defend what you said but instead try to turn it
on me for having said that you lied, when you clearly did.

At least everyone else can see what a fool you're making of yourself...

> "Show me proof.  Show me blackened bones.
> "Oh, that's right - there isn't any.
> ""As I said before, I won't say that such events
> "haven't happened,because in all likelihood, they have
> "- but we *have no proof.*
> "This is not denial.  This is fact.
>
> What "we" pretty well know is that Jason's assertion
> is not a fact, and that he is exhibiting denial.

You have a layer of cosmic dust and a decline in animal populations.
I don't doubt in any way that the answer is of cosmic origin, but what
I'm saying is that you can't say with *any* degree of certainty what
sort of cosmic event caused the layer of dust and supposed climate
change because you have no solid evidence (such as the Yucatan crater)
to prove your point.  You maintain that, and I quote,
"4) As far as locating the 31,000 BCE crater goes, its
possible that the situation might be similar to the
K-T crater - that one took 10 years to find.  Same
goes for impact point(s) for the 10,900 BCE event. If
you look at impact crater distribution maps, you'll
see that  more have been found in the areas where
geologists live."

- Which means that you expect a large, thirty-thousand year old crater
to exist somewhere on the continent.  Until you find definitive
evidence such as this, all of your theories remain nothing more than
unsubstantiated hypothesis.

What you have is a lack of proof for any known impact process, and you
seem to want to attribute that to an airburst.  In science, we just
don't do that.

> "Rationalize them away?  I'm not trying to say
> anything "other than the fact that you're attributing
> a mass "hominid death to an airburst/impact scenario
> (you seem "to have changed your mind in this regard),
>
> For the 10,900 BCE event Sterling brought up airburst,
> but only as an example of how little evidence can
> remain from a pretty big impact. I've pretty well
> always spoken about multiple cometary impactors, and a
> change in the north Pacific Current.

Climate change could change any ocean current given only a few hundred
years, especially if large amounts of cold fresh-water are entering
the ocean in the form of glacial melt.  This, in turn, could drive
greater climate changes, as weather patters are disrupted, etc.
Find me a crater and I'll believe you.  Until then, bluster away.

> >"I'm saying we don't know how they died.
>
> But we do, as absolute physical evidence has been
> demonstrated.  Jason's reactions here are similar to
> those some have had to the dinosuars' extinction,
> where even though you have a big hole in the Earth,
> its always something else that killed them. It's
> probably going to take decades, as Sterling pointed
> out, and will only be accepted by some long after "we"
> are dead.

At every point I acknowledge that a cosmic event was undoubtedly at
least partly to blame for these climate changes - if not directly,
than at least in initiating the steps necessary for a sort of domino
effect in which ocean currents change, etc - see above.

The only person in denial here is you, who refuses to accept the fact
that he can't possibly know with any certainty what sort of cosmic
cataclysms caused either dust layer.  I speak generally about both
because there is no proven source for either one and thus one need not
distinguish between the two, at this point each is as obscured by time
and lack of true study as the other.
Notice how no one else is agreeing with you.  There's a reason.

> >That's not denial.
>
> ahem.

Well, yours is, I'll grant you that.

> >I don't know the exact dynamics of an airburst,
>
> Then why doesn't Jason shut the hell up, and leave the
> discussion to those who at least have an approximate
> knowledge of the dynamics of airburst? The answer,
> again, is denial.

You very apparently know less than I do.
I can calculate KE, and am taking calculus, as well as Physics B.  I
also have read most books available on impact mechanics, though none
of them refer in any way to large bodies (ov

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew - first you cut up the Mammoth

[Jason Utas]

ng glaciers).  I don't see how large flash-floods
would be avoidable in such a scenario...say what you will about the
Mississippi river, but I view your analogy as rather unrelated.

>The Mississippi River is a spanking brand-new river;
> there was never any river here before the end of the last
> glaciation, nor any of the rivers between the Rockies and
> the Appalachians; North America always drained sluggishly
> north to Hudson Bay before the glaciations. As for impacts,
> even huge ones, melting the glaciers? Forget it. You know
> how much energy it takes to melt a cubic mile of ice? The
> equivalent of 330 MegaTons of TNT, which is the thermal
> portion of a GigaTon impact, to remove one cubic mile
> from the thousands and thousands of cubic miles of ice
> that made up the ice cap.
>What does a GigaTon impact take? A 300 meter rock,
> more or less, leaving a 3-mile crater on the ice cap, less
> than a quarter-mile deep. A pinprick to a glacier, a scratch,
> a mosquito bite, a jumbled melt zone that quickly re-freezes
> and doesn't leave a trace. But it might have considerable
> atmospheric effect and deposit traces for thousands of
> miles in every direction.

You spoke of a 10km impactor a while back...it really depends on the
dynamics of each individual impact, but I would suppose that it might
be possible for one not to leave a trace were it to occur far enough
North.
That said, I still favour saying "I don't know," seeing as you're
simply putting forth the solitary scenario that would provide us with
no solid evidence as opposed to looking for any traces of any other
sort of event that might exist...

>No meaningful damage to the physical planet is not
> the same as no meaningful damage to the creatures that
> live on it. Your hypothetical one kilometer impactor is
> a 50 GigaTon impact with an 8 to 10 mile crater about
> a half-mile deep; it leaves a big lake for a while, but its
> atmospheric effects spread around the entire globe and
> might have serious effects on climate. But neither of these
> will leave any trace "on the ground" other than the distant
> deposits of the type talked about. A physically trivial
> event but perhaps not biologically trivial.

Hmmm, possible, and an intriguing thought, but one that I think should
be thoroughly researched/explored, and other evidence looked into
before a conclusion is reached...
As I said before, the airburst model seems highly unlikely to me, but
the ice-impact one...I view the odds of it having occurred as small,
but the dynamics of it at least appear to be logical.

Regards,
Jason

> Sterling K. Webb
> ---
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jason Utas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Meteorite-list" 
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew - first you cut up the Mammoth
>
>
> Hola Sterling, E.P., All,
>
> > Concerning recent impacts (<12,000 years old), what
> > I've noticed over the years is that some people go
> > into denial, and those denial mechanisms are sometimes
> > really pretty bizarre. It's tough to accept on a gut
> > level that as things now sit you, your family, your
> > friends, everyone you ever knew or loved can be blown
> > off the face of the Earth in an instant without a
> > minutes warning.
>
> I think you missed my point, because I accept this fully.
>
> > But that's exactly how it is,
>
> Yeah...
>
> > and
> > that's exactly what happened to some of our fellow
> > human beings in the recent past.
>
> Well, probably, though we have no real proof of their having been
> blasted to death *anywhere.*
>
> > So, Jason, you wrote:
> >
> > >Right, but seeing as the effects from the event of
> > >which we speak differ greatly from those of your
> > >comparison, it seems an unworthy one to make.  Yes,
> > an >unknown phenomena might create such a set of
> > effects
> > >as are geologically evident, but just saying "it's
> > >possible" is something that I acknowledge as well; we
> > >all know that Tunguska events occur and that,
> > >evidently, astronomical events that create the
> > >geological evidence that we've found occur.  But that
> > >still in no way ties the two together.
> >
> > Fact is, Jason, the Tunsguska impactor was viewed
> > coming in, and spherules from it have been recovered.
> > Sorry to disappoint you, but it wasn't a flying
> > saucer.
>
> No shit.  It was most likely a piece of a burnt-out comet.  My point
> w

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew, then you take the pieces back to your fire

[Jason Utas]

E.P, All,

> >Well, probably, though we have no real proof of their
> >having been blasted to death *anywhere.*
>
> Denial takes many forms.

Show me proof.  Show me blackened bones.
Oh, that's right - there isn't any.
As I said before, I won't say that such events haven't happened,
because in all likelihood, they have - but we *have no proof.*
This is not denial.  This is fact.

> > I'm not an idiot.
>
> No one said you were. It simply that your efforts to
> rationalize away the deaths from these impacts is
> reducing your replies to incoherence.

Rationalize them away?  I'm not trying to say anything other than the
fact that you're attributing a mass hominid death to an
airburst/impact scenario (you seem to have changed your mind in this
regard), when the geologic effects that we observe can not be
attributed to any known extraterrestrial or terrestrial mechanism.
I'm not saying they didn't die.  I'm not saying that it doesn't matter
if or how they died.  I'm saying we don't know how they died.

That's not denial.  It is nothing more than plainly admitting to what
we do and do not know - which is, in my (evidently raving and
incoherent) mind, the right path to take.

> > A cometary airburst of a body, say, 1km in diameter,
> > simply doesn't make any sense.  Physically
> > speaking (I'm currently taking college-level
> > physics), it just doesn't make sense.  Maybe you
> know > of some laws regarding atmospheric resistance
> that I > don't, but unless some such laws exist, I'm
> > disinclined to believe just about everything you
> say.
>
> I never said that a 1 kilometer comet airburst.

How big would it have to be to release enough energy to reduce the
hominid population of the continent to 1/10 of its original number?
I don't know the exact dynamics of an airburst, but I would assume
that it would take a body in the ten km range to generate enough
energy.  A 1km object, the one used in my examples, although not big
enough to create the observed effects, is far above the limit in size
of what could conceivably detonate i nan airburst scenario without
having reached the ground.
Hell, you're the one saying it was an airburst - you tell me how big
the body was.

> I used to get upset when people put words into my
> mouth, as I always used to attribute it to my
> inability to communicate clearly. Now I realize that
> it has a different cause.

See above.

> >We don't know much about cometary composition, but
> > there's no reason (at all) to suspect that they
> > formed around iron cores,
>
> I never said that.

And I quote:

"It seems to me that the cores of the cometissimals in
a comet have a nice metal content. That's where the
iridium is, after all."

So...you did say that

Bad memory?

> > They were mostly in the past.  Impact rates have
> been > declining.  I'm not saying that there's no
> chance
> > that we could be wiped out tomorrow.
> > What I'm saying is that the odds are better for us
> > living out the next day than they were, say, two
> > billion years ago. That's a fact.
>
> No it isn't. You forgot to consider comet impact when
> estimating the odds. Once again, estimates of the
> impact hazard are exactly that, estimates, and are
> known to be weak.

Well we know for a fact that there were more large bodies in the early
solar system billions of years ago than there are today simply from
mathematical models, though we may not be able to prove such numbers
precisely with vast numbers of dated craters.
The models are still sound; it would take a good few pages of my
typing to explain them fully, and, to be frank, I see no point in
wasting the time.

> >Because you're misunderstanding just about everything
> >I say?
>
> No, see my comment on my communication skills, above.
> It's for a different reason.

Well, evidently I haven't been able to truly "rationalize" these
deaths (that so clearly plague my subconscious) and they are thus
driving me to "incoherence..."

Right.

If you stopped lying - and maybe started obeying the laws of physics,
scientific method, not to mention basic logic, we might get somewhere.

Until that day, good day.

Jason

> good hunting all,
> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
>
>
>
>  
> 
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew - first you cut up the Mammoth

[Jason Utas]

Hola Sterling, E.P., All,

> Concerning recent impacts (<12,000 years old), what
> I've noticed over the years is that some people go
> into denial, and those denial mechanisms are sometimes
> really pretty bizarre. It's tough to accept on a gut
> level that as things now sit you, your family, your
> friends, everyone you ever knew or loved can be blown
> off the face of the Earth in an instant without a
> minutes warning.

I think you missed my point, because I accept this fully.

> But that's exactly how it is,

Yeah...

> and
> that's exactly what happened to some of our fellow
> human beings in the recent past.

Well, probably, though we have no real proof of their having been
blasted to death *anywhere.*

> So, Jason, you wrote:
>
> >Right, but seeing as the effects from the event of
> >which we speak differ greatly from those of your
> >comparison, it seems an unworthy one to make.  Yes,
> an >unknown phenomena might create such a set of
> effects
> >as are geologically evident, but just saying "it's
> >possible" is something that I acknowledge as well; we
> >all know that Tunguska events occur and that,
> >evidently, astronomical events that create the
> >geological evidence that we've found occur.  But that
> >still in no way ties the two together.
>
> Fact is, Jason, the Tunsguska impactor was viewed
> coming in, and spherules from it have been recovered.
> Sorry to disappoint you, but it wasn't a flying
> saucer.

No shit.  It was most likely a piece of a burnt-out comet.  My point
was that saying that there was some sort of cosmic event that left no
geologic trace of an impact and saying that Tunguska left no trace
(whatsoever) proves nothing, given that 1) the geologic evidence for
each event is completely different, and that 2) we have no proof that
what occurred was due in any way to an event similar to that which
occurred in Tunguska.

> Sterling, you wrote:
>
> >Atmosphere not a factor in that size range.
>
> Yes it is. Another factor in lunar crater distribution
> is later coverage by dust and removal by later
> impacts.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...that craters on Earth
are hidden by ejecta blankets from other craters that have hidden
them, or that ejecta doesn't move as easily (or moves more easily?)
through an atmosphere...what?

> Jason, you wrote:
>
> >I don't know where you draw the 1km crater line, as,
> >in my opinion, such a body might well break up if it
> >entered the atmosphere at a shallow angle, but who's
> >to say
>
> Well, airbursts can be more devastating then ground
> hits, in terms of overall effect. We know compression
> propagation in impactors, and 1 kilometer crater seems
> to be a good guess as to airburst versus ground
> impact.

No.
Sorry, but that's only true to a limit.  A 10km impactor isn't going
to explode in the atmosphere for any reason that I could conceivably
think of, and it's going to make one hell of a lot of destruction upon
impact...
A 1km object would most likely break up (as opposed to explode in a
violent airburst) if it managed to enter the atmosphere at a slim
angle without glancing off, as the energy required to vaporize such a
large amount of matter is simply too large as to be reasonable.  I
don't think there's a great chance of it breaking up in general, but
if we're talking about cometary material, I do hear that it's
friable...

> Jason, you wrote:
>
> > A thirty-degree impact is highly unlikely,
>
> unsupported and most likely wrong.

It's less likely than an impact occurring at a greater degree measure,
unless I'm mistaken.
My point is that looking at all possible impacts, the likelihood of an
impact occurring at an angle of ~30 degrees or less is simply
unlikely.  Possible, but unlikely - as in odds are that it would not
occur this way.  I'm not an idiot.

> > and I'm thinking that an iron impactor would do a
> bit > more damage than a comet.
>
> wrong. See airburst versus ground impact, above.

Wrong, because such a comet would (in all likelihood) not airburst.  See above.
Also, since we're talking about airbursts, why not look into them vs craters.

An airburst of a ridiculously large (lets say a 1km object, for the
hell of it) size would devastate, what, maybe a thousand square miles?
 Few thousand?  Not enough to do any real damage on the scale that you
mention (death of 90% of all humans on the continent, etc).  Climate
change due to dust released by such an airburst might cause trouble I
suppose, but it was an ice-age anyways; they knew how to deal with
cold.

An impact, on the other hand, should it hit either water or land,
would be infinitely more destructive.  Instead of 1km^3 of material in
the atmosphere (since we're talking about a comet anyways, much of
that would be water, not particulates), you would get that 1km^3 as
well as whatever ejecta that was thrown out or vaporized (causing
global wildfires, etc - the sort of fires that would occur *only
locally* should we be talking about an airburst, becau

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew

[Jason Utas]

be off
> by 300,000 craters either way, but it's "order of magnitude"
> correct. What the current rate is -- that IS the dispute, to be
> determined, not dismissed. Cratering, where we are able to
> closely date it, appears to demonstrate "clustering." If impacts
> come in intense episodes of 50,000 to 100,000 years with
> deep calm between... Well, that means a "local" rate can be
> radically different from a long-term time-averaged rate. What's
> the impact weather like this era? That's the question. It depends,
> in scientific terms, on whether cratering is entirely "stochastic"
> or not. If there are "mechanisms" of cratering, it's not. Since
> we know of several obvious mechanisms (the breakup of
> major asteroids, comet infall from outside perturbations), it
> does not seem likely that the process is stochastic or perfectly
> random. If it is not, the comfortable notion that "such things
> don't happen anymore" is unsupportable.

Did I say that?  I don't think I stated, anywhere, that large impacts
"don't happen anymore."  They don't happen generally at the rates at
which they used to (there used to be more of them)...that was my
point.

> 7. The insistence on perfect matching of extinction and impact
> timing is a red herring. In massive impacts (K-T, the Permian
> Wollop), yes, it should be close. But extinction can be "smeared"
> out over thousands of years by environmental change. The fact
> IS that 10,000 years ago, there were flourishing some 300-odd
> major (big) mammal species that I've never seen and never will.
> They had all been through de-glaciations before, so it wasn't
> that. Either "something" happened or Man the Mass Murderer is
> responsible. (A ridiculous theory; when game is scarce, you move
> on and game recovers. Neolithic man never hunted game down to
> extinction. It takes so long, you'd starve first. They weren't stupid,
> you know. They were opportunists, and they lived off the fat of
> the land, not the lean.)

Well, then climate change could well have been the culprit - but what
cause the climate change is, I think, still open to discussion.
All I've been saying is that I don't think we're going to find a
crater because there isn't one to find, given that it would be of a
young age, large (if it existed), and we would thus have already found
it. - And that those iron bits, if they are from a meteorite, didn't
come from the culprit that caused the climate change, because the
dynamics of an impact that could both produce such bits of iron and
cause global climate change, without badly searing the bones, do not,
in my opinion, exist.

Regards,
Jason

>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> --
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jason Utas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Meteorite-list" 
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 12:58 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew
>
>
> Sterling, E.P., All,
>
> > For the record, I like my peppered mammoth
> > with lemon butter...
>
> Thick-cut, salt and pepper.
>
> > Jason, think about Tunguska. A 25 megaton airburst
> > that left no crater, no pits, not even the tiniest, no
> > material remains whatsoever, no isotopic traces in
> > reliable amounts, nothing with a side order of zilch.
> > (Ok,  possible microscopic spherules in trees, not
> > 2-3 mm particles, and disputed to boot).
>
> Exactly; nothing was left; no evidence, no anything.
> How, so, can you relate this to Tunguska, when the evidence that we
> have for it is completely different?
>
> > Yet, had it occurred over Belgium, it would have
> > killed 90% of the population of the nation, or if over
> > metropolitan London simply removed the world's
> > then-largest city from the map. IF we did not have
> > the Russian newspapers, the native reports, Kulik's
> > photos of the trees (gone now), could anyone today
> > detect that it had ever occurred? And it hasn't even
> > been a lousy century! (The Centennial is next June!)
>
> But you're lacking the isotopic evidence, etc.  Not so with this layer
> of...whatever it is.
>
> > Like a belief in the existence of the atom or any other
> > thing that we cannot and never will see with our own
> > eyes, vast numbers of craters have covered on Earth.
>
> Mhm...
>
> > 1) The flux of impactors at the Earth is identical to the
> > flux of impactors at the Moon, since the two bodies
> > occupy the same orbit and always have, the Moon like
> > a celestial tick on

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew

[Jason Utas]

Hola All,
But the main problem is that impact rates have not been constant since
the formation of a solid lunar crust a number of billions of years
ago, and as such, this declining rate biases the results put forth.
Simply put, we're talking about craters having formed in the past ~50k
years, as that's the time period that we're discussing, because before
this, impact rates were different (greater).
Older craters on earth erode, to the point of being unrecognizable,
another reason for us to use the ~50k age range, as simple wind and
rain will take care of even the largest craters given only a few
hundred million years (never mind the ~2 billion year old pristine
lunar surface), to the point of making them inconspicuous, at best.
Using such absolute numbers as the total number of lunar impact
craters is simply biased towards a period of time two billion years
ago, and unless one knows the approximate age of all lunar craters,
there's just no point of using it as a comparison for the number of
impacts that was occurring ~50k years ago, as we simply don't know
what the rate was.
...Am I making sense?
Regards,
Jason


On Dec 17, 2007 10:05 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I was wanting to find REAL numbers, but may have to rely on memory:
>
> 1. The Moon stops very little of what might hit the Earth. The cross
> section of the Moon is pi x radius(Moon)**2. A sphere at the Moon's
> distance is
> 4 x pi x radius(orbit)**2. Since the distance from the Earth to the Moon
> is about 110 Moon diameters (220 Moon radii), the Moon on "stops"
> 1/(4 x220 x 220) of what might be heading toward the Earth, about
> 1/200,000. Not very many.
>
> On the other hand, and this has to be from memory, the Earth's "cross
> section" to impacts is about 10% greater than its true cross section
> (thanks to its gravity; there is a similar effect for the Moon, but much
> less).
>
> So, in reality, the Earth should have 10% more craters than the Moon per
> unit surface area.
>
> If you want to get fussy about shielding, it works both ways: while the
> Moon shields the Earth, the Earth shields the Moon (much better).
>
> I will continue to search for the actual cross section effect.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> On Mon, December 17, 2007 10:34 am, E.P. Grondine wrote:
> > Hi Sterling, list -
> >
> >
> > Thanks for clarifying the impact crater situation,
> > though I am still sceptical about the models of Moon impact rates and Earth
> > impact rates.
> >
> > I know that the Moon absorbed some impactors that were
> > headed for the Earth - at least it did so within human recorded memory, and
> > if anyone wants proof of this, contact me off list and I'll you a copy of
> > the Trempeauleau petroglyph.
> >
> >
> > So at a minimum the Earth cross section needs to be
> > reduced in modeling the combined Earth-Moon system. My guess is that this
> > should reduce the impact rate/craters by about 10%, leaving say only 2.7
> > million or so craters. (Imagine that, E.P. arguing for a lower Earth
> > impact rate!)
> >
> > Could you give us the quick math for this? I can't do
> > it myself anymore.
> >
> > I was also quite surprised by this cratering model you
> > pointed to:
> >
> > http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/02/1025craters.html
> >
> >
> > given that the KT-fossil meteorite is carbonaceous chondrite, in other
> > words a comet, and that the Sudbury impact appears to have been iron, as
> > its remains are a source for our nickel steel. It seems likely to me that
> > this Illinois team's computer model is off.
> >
> > Re: the apparent 31,000 BCE impact, my hope is that
> > large irons may have survived in "defraction lenses" (is that the right
> > term?) in the blast, irons large enough to survive later weathering.
> > Trying to remember
> > the find spot for the mammoth tusks, I seem to remember it was reported
> > that they came from a shop in Calgary, further unknown.
> >
> >
> > good hunting all, E.P. Grondine
> > Man and Impact in the Americas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _
> > ___
> > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> >
>
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew

[Jason Utas]

Sterling, E.P., All,

> For the record, I like my peppered mammoth
> with lemon butter...

Thick-cut, salt and pepper.

> Jason, think about Tunguska. A 25 megaton airburst
> that left no crater, no pits, not even the tiniest, no
> material remains whatsoever, no isotopic traces in
> reliable amounts, nothing with a side order of zilch.
> (Ok,  possible microscopic spherules in trees, not
> 2-3 mm particles, and disputed to boot).

Exactly; nothing was left; no evidence, no anything.
How, so, can you relate this to Tunguska, when the evidence that we
have for it is completely different?

> Yet, had it occurred over Belgium, it would have
> killed 90% of the population of the nation, or if over
> metropolitan London simply removed the world's
> then-largest city from the map. IF we did not have
> the Russian newspapers, the native reports, Kulik's
> photos of the trees (gone now), could anyone today
> detect that it had ever occurred? And it hasn't even
> been a lousy century! (The Centennial is next June!)

But you're lacking the isotopic evidence, etc.  Not so with this layer
of...whatever it is.

> Like a belief in the existence of the atom or any other
> thing that we cannot and never will see with our own
> eyes, vast numbers of craters have covered on Earth.

Mhm...

> 1) The flux of impactors at the Earth is identical to the
> flux of impactors at the Moon, since the two bodies
> occupy the same orbit and always have, the Moon like
> a celestial tick on our neck.

Well they haven't always, but, irrelevant to this discussion.

> 2) The pristine state of the Moon allows for a very
> accurate count of the number of impactors that have
> struck the Moon (allowing for extrapolation for the
> areas covered by flood basalts -- ~170,000 impactors
> producing craters of one kilometer or more).

Fine, fine, information we all know.

> 3) It's mathematical child's play to scale up the lunar
> impactor flux to the Earth's size and add in the increase
> in "gravitational" cross section caused by the Earth's
> stronger gravity (13.5 + 4.4 = ~18 times more impactors).
> Not only that, but the stronger terrestrial gravity means
> that ANY impactor will make a bigger crater on the Earth
> than it would have if it had smacked the Moon instead.
> (And for impactors that would make a crater 1 km or
> more in diameter, the atmosphere is not a factor.)

Well, we also have to take into account that a fist-sized meteorite
will make a crater six or so meters across on the moon whereas on
earth such a thing would make nothing more than a pretty light show.

> 4) So we can easily determine the number of craters on
> the Earth. No problem. The Earth has had approximately
> three million (3,000,000) impactors, so we must have
> three million (3,000,000) craters over one kilometer in
> diameter!

Subtract the smaller craters and account for erosion...we're talking
about the past fifty thousand years, not 2+ billion.  The number of
impactors over this timeframe was smaller than that of before, and
erosion has taken a lesser tole on such craters, as they're younger.

> Before we all run outdoors to check out the vista of
> craters, craters, craters everywhere -- sorry, they're gone.
> After counting craters from the obvious to those hidden
> to the eyes of all but gravitometers, 17,999 craters out of
> every 18,000 craters have vanished utterly from the planet
> without a trace!

See above...this makes sense given that most of the craters were
formed before the timeframe that is of any importance to this
discussion.

> So, both these statements are true, in their fashion:
> a) The Earth is the most cratered body in the solar system.
> b) The Earth is the least cratered body in the solar system.*
> (* except for the other really interesting place... Titan)

Well, maybe, maybe not...Mars should probably be more so.

> >From 98,000 years BP to 14,000 BP, a northern polar
> ice cap was in place, yes, with retreats and advances,
> recensions and excursions, in this area or that area, or
> all areas, changes whose precise timing is hard to pin
> down, but for ALL of that 84,000 years, there was a
> land based ice cap in most of the northern hemisphere,
> varying in thickness from 1000 meters to 3000 meters.

Right-o.

> Two miles of vertical ice. Now gone. What traces
> of a crater in its upper surface do you expect would
> survive? Just for fun, I went and modeled on the LPI
> Impact Calculator a Ten Kilometer Comet a little less
> dense than water making a 30-degree impact, releasing
> 8 million MegaTons TNT [or 8 TeraTons] energy
> equivalent, and its crater wouldn't have reached through
> an ice cap that thick; the crater was only 1100 meters
> deep. Also, I don't know if anyone has seriously
> analyzed a cratering event in deep ice! Ice, hard as
> it seems, has properties midway between weak rock
> and deep water (which produces much shallower
> craters than rock).

But we have to account for a crater (well, impactor at least - or
m

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew

[Jason Utas]

E.P., Sterling, All,

> Firstly, it's not "my" crater, nor "my" impactites. I
> first saw this on National Geographic TV, and had not
> even read Firestone's Mammoth Trumpet piece until
> Sterling pointed it out to us. This was Kenneth's
> team's work.

Well, seeing as you're the only one advocating such a thing's
existence (everyone else says 'maybe,' if that), for our purposes, it
is essentially yours.

> Secondly, I made no estimate of crater size - though
> if I were going to do so, I'd probably scale from
> Firestone's C14 calibration chart. If I remember that
> C14 chart right, the diameter should be smaller than
> Canyon Diablo - so let's see, what is that, less than
> a kilometer?

Were we or were we not talking about something that wiped out 90% of
human life on the continent?  I think an impactor in the ~1km
crater-making range just wouldn't be able to cope.

> Thirdly, I don't think that the far north has been
> explored as well as the lower part of North America.
> Given the funding levels for this kind of work, I
> think your assertion that a crater does not exist may
> be a little premature. Its difficult to work up there.

Hmmm, yes and no.  Fewer people live up there, but it has been gone
over much more thoroughly by geologists in search of diamonds, oil,
and natural gas; look at the number of craters up there if you don't
believe me.

> Fourthly, others here have already mentioned glaciers
> and glacial action. Don't you think they might have
> affected any crater, or that there may have been an
> ice impact?

On a crater that must be this big?
No.

> Fifthly, about the best sceptical comment made here at
> the meteorite list was the one about sparks from
> welding. But then that hypothesis was shot down by the
> observed bone healing, and the sample from Siberia,
> so...

Well they're not spheroids, so...eh.

Jason

> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
>
>
> >"If
> > you look at impact crater distribution maps, you'll
> > see that  more have been found in the areas where
> > geologists live."
>
> Yes, and this impact of which you speak supposedly
> occurred in the North America, one of the areas
> (namely the US) with the largest number of geologists
> in-residence in the world.
>
> With regards to the rest of your statement, the
> trouble with saying this that we simply haven't found
> it yet is that technology and knowledge at the time,
> back when the Yucatan crater was found, with regards
> to impact craters and mechanisms was extremely
> limited.
> Nowadays, we know much more about them, and, were
> there such a crater on the continent with such a young
> age, I have *no* doubt that it would have already been
> found.  It's one thing to compare two similar craters,
> but that's not what you're doing.  You just compared a
> (probably) 10-20 mile diameter crater with an age
> younger than that of CD to a crater that, regardless
> of its size, is sixty-five million years old, and has
> been eroded to nothing visible.
>
> Bad comparison.  A thirty-thousand year old crater of
> such a size would be painfully obvious, regardless of
> where it was.  You can try to deny this fact as much
> as you like, but that makes it no lesser a fact.
> You're talking about a crater 3/4 the age of CD, with
> a
> diameter ten to twenty times as large.
>
> Ejecta fields would span the country, and probably
> other continents as well.  Have a look at the
> australasian tektite field.  It was formed
> by a crater that might be no more than 10km across, or
> so I hear, and we find these tektites strewn more than
> halfway across the world, and many are turned up
> (microtektites in any case) in core samples from
> the bottom of the ocean, by chance.  It's a 700,000
> year old impact.
>
> And yet we find no trace of your ~30,000 year old
> impactites anywhere - not on the ground, under water,
> or anywhere else. I'm inclined to believe that your
> crater shares the same fate.
>
> It's not hiding...if it did exist, we would have found
> it...we haven't found it...it doesn't exist.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>  
> 
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew

[Jason Utas]

Hello E.P., All,

> 1) From the descriptions, the spherules in the tusks
> appear to be the result of the condensation of iron
> plasma, the same as at Barringer crater.

Completely wrong.  The spherules from CD are spherules that condensed
out of the atmosphere and fell to Earth as solid spherules of
solidified iron; otherwise they wouldn't retain their spherical shape
upon contact with the ground.
The tusks, on the other hand, show evidence of (apparently) very hot
(to the point of being molten) iron having hit them at a fairly high
velocity.  IF this were the case with CD droplets, they wouldn't be
spherical.

> 2) When Nininger did his survey of spherules at
> Barringer crater, I doubt if he looked several hundred
> miles away from the crater - that's what I think of as
> a ballistic re-entry. The internet site for this
> impact has been greatly improved, and I'm sure that
> some here must have been active in that.

He looked until he stopped finding them.
And I still don't know what your term "ballistic re-entry" means.
It seems to imply that something which has (left what...?) left is
re-entering (whatever it left).  Seeing as the CD spherules are merely
the product of an atmospheric condensation that occurred directly
above the crater (or maybe a little downwind), I don't see from where
you're getting the terms "entry" or "re-entry."
Nothing ever left.

> I don't know about winds at the time of Barringer
> impact, but I can't remember any statement as to angle
> of impact. But then I can't remember many things
> anymore.

Indeed.  The angle of impact has been determined (I'm feeling a little
pressed for time, as I have a choral concert rehearsal in half an
hour, so I won't bother to look it up), and is available in a number
of books and websites, I'm sure; if you'd care to look it up, by all
means, do so, but I don't see what it has to do with the discussion at
this point.

> 3) I have no idea what the spherules' temperatures
> were when they landed - but my guess is that they must
> have been too high to use any type of barrel to
> duplicate their hitting the bones. My guess is that
> magnetic suspension and acceleration would be about
> it.

Seeing as they retained a spherical shape, and did not fuse to
surrounding sand or rocks, they were undoubtedly below the melting
point of iron.  Beyond that, I can't really guess, but I can assure
you that they were all below the melting point of iron upon contact
with the ground, and any temperature in such a range is easily
simulated, from ~700 to, well a reasonably low guess to temperature
would probably be around 0 degrees C, as sometimes the ambient
temperature gets down to that in the upper desert.

> 4) As far as locating the 31,000 BCE crater goes, its
> possible that the situation might be similar to the
> K-T crater - that one took 10 years to find.  Same
> goes for impact point(s) for the 10,900 BCE event. If
> you look at impact crater distribution maps, you'll
> see that  more have been found in the areas where
> geologists live.

Firstly -

>"If
> you look at impact crater distribution maps, you'll
> see that  more have been found in the areas where
> geologists live."

Yes, and this impact of which you speak supposedly occurred in the
North America, one of the areas (namely the US) with the largest
number of geologists in-residence in the world.

With regards to the rest of your statement, the trouble with saying
this that we simply haven't found it yet is that technology and
knowledge at the time, back when the Yucatan crater was found, with
regards to impact craters and mechanisms was extremely limited.
Nowadays, we know much more about them, and, were there such a crater
on the continent with such a young age, I have *no* doubt that it
would have already been found.  It's one thing to compare two similar
craters, but that's not what you're doing.  You just compared a
(probably) 10-20 mile diameter crater with an age younger than that of
CD to a crater that, regardless of its size, is sixty-five million
years old, and has been eroded to nothing visible.
Bad comparison.  A thirty-thousand year old crater of such a size
would be painfully obvious, regardless of where it was.  You can try
to deny this fact as much as you like, but that makes it no lesser a
fact.  You're talking about a crater 3/4 the age of CD, with a
diameter ten to twenty times as large.

Ejecta fields would span the country, and probably other continents as
well.  Have a look at the australasian tektite field.  It was formed
by a crater that might be no more than 10km across, or so I hear, and
we find these tektites strewn more than halfway across the world, and
many are turned up (microtektites in any case) in core samples from
the bottom of the ocean, by chance.  It's a 700,000 year old impact.

And yet we find no trace of your ~30,000 year old impactites anywhere
- not on the ground, under water, or anywhere else.
I'm inclined to believe that your crater shares the same fa

Re: [meteorite-list] Sweet-and-sour Pepper Mammoth experiment

[Jason Utas]

Tracy, All,

Tracy, you said:
"There are a couple scenarios where a good-size impactor could strike
and leave no crater, but create havoc.  One is if it made a water
strike close to a coastline, and another is if it struck an ice sheet,
like a glacier, which subsequently melted.  Are there any tsunami
deposits of the appropriate age on either coast?  I'm not sure if a
strike on a glacier would scar the land underneath, especially if the
glacier ground and washed away the evidence."

This would be true for a small impact, but we're talking about the
devastation of a continent, not a localized area.  An ice sheet would
do little to buffer the underlying ground from an impact of the
necessary magnitude, and the same goes for a coastal impact.  Note the
Chesapeake and Yucatan impacts for such examples, as well as the
impact that created the Everglades.  I don't know of any craters that
are confirmed to have been formed through the penetration of an
ice-sheet, as I don't think that current methods of dating are that
precise, but maybe I'm wrong...

Regards,
Jason

On Dec 15, 2007 4:48 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jerry
> Be careful what you believe. They give NO concentrations, but just use the 
> word "anomalous." Which means about nothing.
> Matt
> --
> Matt Morgan
> Mile High Meteorites
> http://www.mhmeteorites.com
> P.O. Box 151293
> Lakewood, CO 80215 USA
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:24:35
> To:"tracy latimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Sweet-and-sour Pepper Mammoth experiment
>
>
> I am curious about the chemical composition of the iron pellets found in the
> bones.  Traces of iridium would go a long way towards establishing an
> extraterrestrial origin for the iron.
>
> Tracy and List, if you've been reading ALL of the information, Ir. is found
> throughout the NA continent about the same 13,000Time Layer [not that the
> tusks and skull fit that era]. Ir does not have to be in the Fe/Ni. Any for
> instance in SA's, Canyon Diablo, or any irons?? None that I've heard.
>
> Jerry Flaherty
> - Original Message -
> From: "tracy latimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:01 PM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Sweet-and-sour Pepper Mammoth experiment
>
>
>
>
> Can the same results be replicated in the lab?  Let's get a pile of bones
> (mammoth ivory is too expensive and cow bones would probably do just as
> well, since the same scarring was observed on a bison skull) and do some
> tests.  Heat up some coarse iron shavings and introduce them to the bones at
> various velocities and temperatures, a.k.a. use a airgun to fire red-hot
> millings at the bones, or simply sift them onto the bones.  If we can
> reproduce the peppering effect, we have established that a. human agencies
> can do it, even accidentally (not saying they DID, just that they CAN), and
> b. the iron particles didn't need to be the result of cosmic velocities.
>
> I am curious about the chemical composition of the iron pellets found in the
> bones.  Traces of iridium would go a long way towards establishing an
> extraterrestrial origin for the iron.
>
> E.P says:
> > You know, its strange to me. Most here are focused on
> > this "smaller" iron impact and the peppered tusks,
> > instead of on the comet impact which killed about 90%
> > of the people living in North America at the time.
> > Most died due to hunger. But then, there's not likely
> > to be any strewn field from that, and nothing to trade
> > except impactites.
>
> Jason says:
> Right...if one believes in such an impact, I'm sure they take it into
> account.
> Your impact would require the creation of a probably 10-20 mile
> diameter crater, which doesn't seem to exist...the fact is that we've
> found craters 1-2 miles across that are millions of years old, and yet
> we haven't found this < 100,000 year old monster of a hole in the
> ground. Such a crater would be a sore thumb, with impactite strewn
> about for hundreds of miles, not to mention the hole itself,
> undoubtedly little eroded since its fairly recent formation.
> Where did you say it was again?
>
> There are a couple scenarios where a good-size impactor could strike and
> leave no crater, but create havoc.  One is if it made a water strike close
> to a coastline, and another is if it struck an ice sheet, like a glacier,
> which subsequently melted.  Are there any tsunami deposits of the
> appropriate age on either coast?  I'm not sure if a strike on a glacier
> would scar the land underneath, especially if the glacier ground and washed
> away the evidence.
>
>
> Recipe for Mammoth Stew:
>
> 1 mammoth
>
> Vegetables
>
> 2 rabbits (optional)
>
> Dice the mammoth.  Brown in a large stew pot; add water to cover and simmer.
> After cooking for 2 days, add vegetables, also diced, and simmer an
> additional hour.  Serve hot.  If extra people are expected, you may
> optionally a

Re: [meteorite-list] Peppered Mammoth tusks

[Jason Utas]

Hello E.P., All,

> First off, West was looking for bones from the comet
> impact of 10,900 BCE, and found the peppered tusks.
> When radiocarbon dated these tusks turned out to be
> from 31,000 BCE, and not from the 10,900 BCE comet
> impact.

Ok...

> Second, there is no terrestrial process that accounts
> for the isotopes found in the iron pellets.

I would change that sentence to: "...there is no known natural process
that accounts for..."
I think it's quite possible that they're man made; I haven't seen the
trace element data for them, so it's hard to say, but seeing as they
haven't noted any iridium, etc, I see no reason why bits of
nickel-iron could not have been introduced in an unnatural manner.

> Third, this was not the airburst of an iron.  Were
> molten iron droplets reported at Sikote Ailin?

No.  Krinov makes no mention of them, nor does anyone else.
The real problem with the theory that it's a Sikhote-like impact is
the fact that larger fragments would travel farther than smaller ones;
if small ones are moving quickly enough to burrow into tusks, etc,
larger fragments would be moving more quickly, with enough speed to
probably travel through the animals themselves.  Also, the scarring
would not be on the top of the tusks, but rather one one side.

> Fourth, this was not the entry of small irons. A field
> of droplets from the entry of small irons has never
> been reported to my knowledge, so I'm pretty sure the
> physics of it precludes it. These droplets appear to
> be larger than the micro-meteorites collected from
> gutters and pans, and they were red hot when they hit
> the bones.

Or at least we assume that they were hot when they hit...nothing has
been proven yet except for the fact that there are small pieces of
iron on tusks.

> Fifth, as far as crushing bones goes, we don't know
> the penetrative force required for molten iron
> droplets. No comparative work has been done on modern
> cattle bones, and this will require the use of a
> magnetic accelerator, not a shotgun.

Or a sort of cannon should do it.  Red-hot shot was used as a
weaponquite a while ago, I believe.

> Sixth, only limited work has been done on the droplet
> field around Barringer Crater, so we don't know the
> distribution of droplets and blast force that occurred
> there. In the mammoth tusk case, I think that the
> pellets followed a ballistic trajectory, not a linear
> one.

Well, Nininger mapped the field exceedingly well, so this is untrue.
We know the exact distribution of the droplets, and even the direction
in which the wind was blowing on the day that the impact occurred.
I'm not sure about what you're trying to say here.  The pellets only
occur on the top-side of the bones in question, so there's no
possibility of a real ballistic trajectory, as they would occur
primarily on one side of the tusks/bones if that were the case.
That said, everything in the closed earth system (at least in nature)
follows ballistic rules, assuming that it has an initial velocity to
work with), due to gravity (9.81m/s^2 downward), which is the part
that confuses me somewhat.  Linear vs. ballistic?  Sounds like
semantics to me.

> No mention was made of where these mammoth tusks came
> from. I think there's a fossil field of irons out
> there waiting to be recovered. A big one.

I don't.  Why would tiny droplets of iron pelt these animals, and yet
nothing bigger do any damage?  Speaking in terms of physics, the
bigger pieces should have more inertia and thus travel farther and
faster than the smaller fragments.  Seeing as no large fragments made
it to the animals (assuming, of course, that we really are talking
about an impact here), I see no reason to assume that there are any.

> Seventh, note again the large spikes in the radio
> calibration curve.  Spikes at 10,900 BCE (comet),
> 31,000 BCE (iron); there is a third spike around
> 44,000 BCE. I wonder if this last might be related to
> the Barringer impact.

Who knowsit could be due to just about anything, but I'm failry
sure that Canyon Diablo was too small of an impact to produce such
results.

> Could large impacts release neutrons regardless of the
> type of impactor? Or is there some extra-solar
> process, say the impact of an iron with a neutron
> star, which might send material and neutrons our way,
> including material from the Oort Cloud? What accounts
> for this increased C14? Impacts from the same debris
> stream with our Sun? Nothing reported there that I
> know of.

Nothing's going to shear anything out of the gravitational pull of a
neutron star...well, maybe a black hole, but beyond that...no.
The Oort cloud is dust and ice...
Increased C14?  Probably an increase in solar radiation...if there's
enough CO2 in the atmosphere, that really could do the trick.

> You know, its strange to me. Most here are focused on
> this "smaller" iron impact and the peppered tusks,
> instead of on the comet impact which killed about 90%
> of the people living in North A

Re: [meteorite-list] Re Firstone: Anything but impact, eh?

[Jason Utas]

Hola E.P., All,

>Perhaps data from Barringer could throw more light on
the reentry of iron spherules from an iron ground
impact. I seem to remember frei-punkt, a maximum speed
for air entry.

Reentry of iron sperules?  Maximum speed?  With Canyon Diablo, they
condensed out of a cloud of vapour above the site of impact, no other
way.  Spherules weren't moving quickly or anything like that - they
condensed, and fell primarily downwind of the crater, at, I would
assume, relatively low velocity and temperature - not quickly enough
or hot enough to penetrate bone, I'm sure.
Regards,
Jason.


On Dec 14, 2007 10:24 AM, E.P. Grondine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> If one examines the C14 adjustment chart in the pdf,
> one notices the nice adjustment at 10,900 BCE.
>
> While I assembled some of the peoples' traditions
> which described COMET IMPACT and generally have been
> dumped on by many for suggesting that the peoples
> remembered what happened to them, Kenneth's recovery
> of impactites is pretty much is undeniable.  Trying to
> remember through the haze here, but did Kenneth not
> also demonstrate comet related 3He samples?
>
> Given the C14 adjuctment at 10,900, is it possible
> that hyper-velocity impacts free binding forces, and
> that neutrons are released?
>
> Next question down this chain. If this is so, might
> such a process affect the results of some the standard
> tools used in examining meteoritic samples?
>
> Perhaps data from Barringer could throw more light on
> the reentry of iron spherules from an iron ground
> impact. I seem to remember frei-punkt, a maximum speed
> for air entry.
>
> That's my guess at what is being looked at, nothing
> more exotic than that. Where did these peppered tusks
> come from?
>
> PS - there was another major impact around 8,350 BCE
> which ended the paleo period.
>
> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
>
>
>
>
>  
> 
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoths Found Peppered with Meteorite Fragments

[Jason Utas]

Hello Sterling, Tracy, All,

Sterling, you said, "As always, when people dislike an explanation, they
do not search for an explanation that works, they attack the facts for
demanding one."

I agree...kind of.  While I do agree that attacking an existing
hypothesis may well be easier than coming up with one of my own, I see
no reason to refrain from criticizing an existing theory if it has
obvious flaws.  I don't pretend to know what made those iron bits, or
what embedded them in tusks, etc.  I know that I have no idea about
what could have done that.

That said, I see no reason to criticize an article that's come out
because there's a decent chance, in my opinion, that I might know more
about the field of meteoritics than a radiologist, given my ten years
(well, come this summer) in the hobby.  In any case, I knew more about
it than he did when you sent your query back in 2005.

That said -
You're not talking about a meteoric airburst here: at least not in the
classic sense of one.

Unfortunately, when you enter the realm of supernova material, and
iron thus formed, I can't speak with any certainty regarding its
structure, or anything like that.  I would still presume that, the
body's being iron and formed in high temperatures, the iron resulting
from a supernova-type explosion would be of the same general structure
of a typical meteorite.  If there was a little nickel (or who knows
what else mixed in), it might be more like an ataxite or silicated
iron, but no known meteorite tends to spread like shot upon
atmospheric entry.

But you mention radiation, fullerenes, diamonds, etc - all material
for which I can't really account.  Supernovas are interesting things,
and I can't guess with any certainty at what might come out of one.  I
have learned (sat in on a grad class for a few days when they were
discussing the collapse and nova of a large star) of the processes,
though, and I must say that this theory seems the far said of
far-fetched to me.  A ball of dusty iron-like...stuff...that came in
at, as you say, a galactic speed, etc, etc, and yet burned up to the
degree that by the time it reached an altitude of ~5-10 feet from the
ground (hah), that small particles still had enough velocity to
literally burn their way into bone material.

I suppose it's physically possible, I grant you that.

But you wind up with a few problems when you factor in other bits of
information.

1) The break up would still have to be very late in the atmosphere.
If particles that size are moving at galactic speeds by themselves,
the only thing they're going to do (at an altitude of sixty miles,
never mind five or ten miles, or feet for that matter) is turn
straight into plasma.

2) Such a low airburst would limit the size of the affected area.  If
you're talking about a big climate change/extinction/whatever you want
to call it, it's going to take more than a single Tunguska or Sikhote
event to do it.
Maybe because of the higher velocities involved, you're thinking that
the explosion might have been bigger.
I would simply point out that the tusks have no sign of heat damage
other than the areas immediately surrounding the bits of iron (if
that's really heat damage).  In my opinion, this would rule the
possibility of a large airburst of any kind out, simply because such
tiny fragments (as seen on the tusks) would only be able to travel a
very short distance: the sort of distance that would immediately be
seared by temperatures of several thousand degrees, if we're looking
at anything Tunguska-like and big enough to initiate climate change.

Any thoughts?  You discounted my last post by saying that I shouldn't
criticize without coming up with my own theory.
Why not discount what I say instead of how I said it?  ^ is taking the
easy way out, and I think that my points are quite valid.

Regards,
Jason




On Dec 13, 2007 5:30 PM, Sterling K. Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, List
>
> Well, I knew we were going to get back to those
> mammoth teeth... How about the history of the
> whole crazy thing? Who is Richard B. Firestone?
>
> Firestone is a well-established scientist, long at
> the Lawrence Radiation Lab at UC Berkeley, and
> for the DOE, Editor of the standard reference of
> the thousands of isotopes of the natural (and
> unnatural) elements, in its eighth edition. Publications:
> http://ie.lbl.gov/rbf/publist.htm are journal articles,
> refereed, invited, etc. Expert on isotopic dating
> lab techniques and geochemistry. Here is his CV:
> http://ie.lbl.gov/rbfcv.html
>
> I think you can dismiss the shotgun theory, really:
> No Cardiff Giant, no Abominable Snow Man, no fake
> diamond mine, no Barnum tricks.
>
> As near as I can determine, this entire thing began
> 20 years ago (you can't say he isn't patient) because,
> as a University geochemist, he was approached by
> several archaeologists, of varying degrees of academicality
> (some were "amateurs"), for assistance in dating their
> sites, and he did the nice-guy thing b

Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoths Found Peppered with Meteorite Fragments

[Jason Utas]

Hello Tracy, All,
I agree, but the main problem is that the spherule-type material from
Canyon Diablo wasn't fired out of anything; it condensed out of a
cloud of vapour that formed as a result of the meteorites vaporization
upon impact.  They weren't necessarily hot to any appreciable degree
when they touched ground, and they weren't moving any more quickly
than terminal velocity.
I think this is just a case of ignorance: of physics, meteorites, etc.
Regards,
Jason

On Dec 13, 2007 12:41 PM, tracy latimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I also agree.  Any airburst or cratering event sufficiently energetic to 
> create Meteor-Crater-esque iron spherules and fire them, still smoking, into 
> mammoth tusks, should result in more definite signs of concussion and heat 
> damage to the other bones.  We should be finding, in conjunction with pitted 
> mammoth tusks, skeletons with shattered bones, singed hair and flesh and 
> other remnants, and other evidence of being at the meteoric equivalent of 
> ground zero.  Look at what happened at Tunguska.  Where are the charred tree 
> stumps and other plant matter?
>
> Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, is there a chance the author is 
> fudging the findings?  Could the proposed results be replicated by, say, 
> firing a shotgun shell full of coarse iron filings at a tusk, like using 
> paper from the appropriate era to forge a historical document?  Stranger 
> things have happened in the course of academia, especially when a scientist 
> has strongly invested in a theory.  Human beings also love a fantastic, even 
> if erroneous, story, over a more pedestrian explanation, despite Occam's 
> Razor.  Is there another, simpler explanation for the findings?
>
> Just call me Doubting Tracy (I was dubious about the Peru crater as well, and 
> was happy to have been proven wrong!)
>
> Tracy Latimer
>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:27:33 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Mammoths Found Peppered with Meteorite 
> > Fragments
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:23:33 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Eight tusks dating to some 35,000 years ago all show signs of having
> >>being peppered with meteorite fragments.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>The mammoth and bison remains all display small (about 2-3mm in size)
> >>perforations.
> >>
> >>Raised, burnt surface rings trace the point of entry of high-velocity
> >>projectiles; and the punctures are on only one side, consistent with a
> >
> > Okay, does this make much sense to someone better with the math than I am? 
> > (I'm
> > staring in your direction, Sterling). How far would particles of 
> > meteorititic
> > or cometary dust (presumedly from an airburst) be able to travel in 
> > near-surface
> > atmospheric thickness while still retaining enough velocity to penetrate 
> > bone
> > and leave "raised, burnt surface rings"? I'm betting not very far at all. 
> > Tens
> > of meters? Hundreds? I'm betting that if you are close enough to have dust
> > (2-3mm) penetrate bone, you are close enough that you are going to be turned
> > into a bag of splintered pulp by the shockwave. Just doesn't seem to hold 
> > water
> > to me.
> > __
> > http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> _
> Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.
> http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_122007
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] 33,000 BCE asteroid impact

[Jason Utas]

E.P., All,

Well, that hardly seems likely; no crater-forming mechanism would
create iron pellets of ejecta such as what occurred on those tusks,
and the likelihood of their being caused by a low-altitude airburst,
though intriguing, seems physically impossible, at least if we're
talking about a globally cataclysmic event.

Simply put, such particles wouldn't travel far at any appreciable
velocity.  Thus, the airburst (assuming that it did, in fact, occur),
must have taken place at a very low altitude, making it highly
unlikely that such an event would have had a global effect on wildlife
across the globe.

Seeing as we're talking about an iron impactor (based on those
embedded particles, that would appear to be the most logical guess for
the composition of the body in question), I think it's safe to say
that we're not talking about a Tonguska-like event.  In fact, since
we're taking about an iron body in the atmosphere, we can probably
rule out any possibility of an atmospheric airburst even occurring in
general, at least to the extent that such features (on the tusks)
would lead us to believe.

An iron meteorite simply would not break up in such a manner; even
'fragile' iron meteorites such as Sikhote Alin, though they fragment
to a great degree, still remain in somewhat intact pieces (larger than
tiny-pellet-sized) when they reach the ground, and if we're taking
about material from a crater, it would have to be a small explosion
crater as opposed to a larger crater even the size of Canyon Diablo,
for such impact mechanics would not generate such a spray of metal.
Even were we to suggest that such an impact would generate such a
mechanism, the animal, as well as its bones, being so close to the
crater, would be vaporized, or at the very least, very, very badly
burned.

So, if we are to assume that a Sikhote-like event generated these iron
pellets in question, I think it's just as easy to say that, unless
we're talking about a multiple-impact event, consisting of at least
one small impactor (to create the features seen on tusks), as well as
at least one larger impact (to generate the necessary crater/climate
change, etc), this is simply a load of rubbish.
\
To be frank, this looks like it was cooked up by someone who doesn't
know anything about entry or impact mechanics, never mind the physical
nature of meteorites.

Jason

On Dec 13, 2007 10:58 AM, E.P. Grondine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> Looks to me like vaporization of impactor, the bits
> falling back to ground several hundred kilometers
> away.
>
> I think there will be a search for an iron impact in
> that range.  Maybe survivals of fossil irons, ala
> Canyon Diablo, but Canada is not as dry as Arizona.
>
> we'll see...
>
> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
>
>
>
>
>  
> 
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Meteorite dates lunar volcanoes *Picture of Kalahari 009*

[Jason Utas]

Hello All,
Unsure if this article has already been posted, but it hasn't arrived
in my inbox yet, so here goes.
Article text below; see link for the picture.
Jason
---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7128000.stm

Meteorite dates lunar volcanoes

Volcanoes were active on the Moon's surface soon after it was formed,
a new study in the journal Nature suggests.
Precision dating of a lunar rock that fell to Earth shows our
satellite must have had lava erupting across its vast plains 4.35
billion years ago.

This is hundreds of millions of years earlier than had been indicated
by the rocks collected by Apollo astronauts.

Scientists say the information will help us better understand the
beginnings of the Solar System.

And they urge future Moon missions to try to obtain more of these most
ancient rocks.

"We want to understand how the Solar System formed, how the planets
formed," said Mahesh Anand from the UK's Open University.

"The Moon is the only place where you can go to find the first 500
million years of geological history, because these old rocks have been
lost on Earth," he told BBC News.

Botswana fortune

According to the favoured theory, the Moon was created some 4.5
billion years ago in a smash-up between the Earth and a Mars-sized
body.

Material thrown into space is believed to have coalesced to become our
satellite.

Volcanism on this new object would not have started until its surface
had cooled to form a crust and its insides had become separated into a
mantle and a core. Quite when this might have happened has been hard
to pin down.

Virtually none of the basaltic rocks collected by moonwalkers are
older than 3.9 billion years; but with less than 400kg of lunar
material returned to Earth, many scientists suspected Apollo would not
be the last word on the subject.

Now, Dr Anand - working with Dr Kentaro Terada, from Hiroshima
University, Japan, and other colleagues - has put a new date on a
lunar meteorite known as Kalahari 009.

Sometime in the past, this 13.5kg volcanic rock was blasted off the
Moon by the impact of an asteroid or comet and fell to Earth in what
is now Botswana.

Moon knowledge

Scientists know it comes from the Moon because of the type of oxygen
atoms it contains.

And by looking closely at the ratio of uranium and lead atoms in the
rock's phosphate minerals, the team has also been able to say when the
basalt was ejected - 4.35 billion years ago, give or take 150 million
years.

"The age of the phosphate is the age of the rock," said Dr Anand,
"because the rock solidifies when the magma cools, and when the magma
cools the mineral forms.

"Volcanic activity is a secondary process. A planet has first to form,
solidify, and separate into layers; and then there is melting of that
solidified mantle to produce volcanism.

"So we are pushing all of this further back in time; and [our
research] suggests these processes took place over a much shorter
timescale than had previously been thought."

New interest

Space agencies have renewed their interest in the Moon three decades
after the Apollo landings.

Europe's recent Smart-1 orbiter has been swiftly followed by Japanese
and Chinese spacecraft.

India will be next; and in the coming decade we should see robots land
on the lunar surface, with astronauts set to return by 2020.

Scientists say the Moon has much to tell us about the early Earth. The
surface rocks on our planet are relatively young because they are
constantly recycled into the interior.

The not-so-dynamic Moon, on the other hand, has an abundance of early
material on its surface. Researchers think it should even harbour
ancient Earth meteorites - rocks that travelled in the opposite
direction to Kalahari 009.
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] magnetic meteorites

[Jason Utas]

Hello Mike,
~92% of all meteorites are magnetic; all irons, all stony irons, and
nearly all stones are magnetic.
The only meteorites that are not magnetic would be the HED's (some of
these are slightly magentic), as well as Aubrites (though some of
these contain iron as well), planetary meteorites (oftentimes
*slightly* attracted to a neodymium magnet, though one should never
poke such meteorites with a magnet), and Rumuruti chondrites (in this
case, because most of the iron is contained within iron sulfide, and
is thus non-magnetic).
Depending on the stone, a few carbonaceous meteorites are lightly
magnetic, but in general, they tend to be magnetic as well.
Almost all meteorites are magnetic...I don't know where you heard
otherwise, but...yeah.
Regards,
Jason

On Dec 2, 2007 4:43 PM, Michael Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi List,
> I've read somewhere that it is possible for a meteorite to be
> magnetic.  Reading that made me believe someone has discovered such a
> meteorite(s).   Anyone out there on the List want to volunteer
> information and/or maybe some pictures (or a link to some pictures)
> of such an iron?  Let me guess this first, mostly kamacite, right?
> If you have pictures, besides wanting to confirm my guess, I am
> interested in seeing the exterior, as in flow features and fusion
> crust.  I would also be interested in knowing just how magnetic it is.
>
> Mike Murray
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)

[Jason Utas]

Hola Adam, All,

>I never called it a type three if you read my emails
although I am confident with the designation
scientists with decades of experience assigned it.

Interestingly put.  Well, I did read your emails, as well as those
posted by your brother, and, to be frank, although you don't state
that it's a type three, you do appear to support Greg's claims without
fully coming out and saying it.  You say as much with this statement:
"I am confident with the designation scientists with decades of
experience assigned it."
You're clearly stating that you believe a certain designation assigned
to the stone, out of the several so far put forth by scientists.

Which designation, might I ask, since you just clearly implied that
you do not support the theory that it is, in fact, an EL3, is the one
in which you believe?

...Since you don't believe it to be an Aubrite (due to a lack of polysynthetic
twinning, as you say), the choices remaining are, I believe, EL6/7 or EL3.

And yet, based on your next statement (that big block of text just
below this, led by a >), I would assume that you support the EL3
classification.

This is contradictory to what you just said up top.

I admit that I might just be reading too deeply into this and you
might, in fact, not agree with the EL3 classification (but are still
trying to justify it for a reason that I cannot fathom, as you did
imply that you believe something different), but you don't, anywhere,
support the EL6/7 classification.
You lost me with your above statement...would you care to expand upon it?



>Not only is the object in earlier posted image an
obvious chondrule, it is a very well-formed,
sharp-edged radial pyroxene chondrule (with a clear
annular rim) containing glass (now largely dissolved
out), and this and others like it are the basis for
the Type 3 designation, along with the fact that the
matrix is not at all recrystallized but instead
"primitive".

Right.  There are a few primitive chondrules - I never denied this
fact, just as you never stated that it's a type three chondrite.  I've
seen the pictures as well as everyone else who cares.  In fact, I've
affirmed the existence of chondrules at every point, so I see really
no need to further this.
The degree of metamorphosis of individual chondrules is, in my
opinion, generally irrelevant.  If one has to cut kilos of material to
find nice unequilibrated chondrules, well, again, I could do the same
with Gao, but that wouldn't make it an H3.


>Finally it is not the low abundance of
chondrules that is important, but their form and glass
content and the matrix texture as confirmed by several
chondrite experts.

Says who?  I've never seen a "type three" chondrite lacking in
chondrules like this before, have you?
Well, I'll answer 'no' for you and move on.
To be perfectly frank, I believe that the ordinary EL3 class assigned
to the meteorite is wrong.
It is clearly not an ordinary EL3, though it may contain sparse
unequilibrated chondrules.
Technically it may be a type three of some sort, and it may be an
EL-something, but one can't say it's both an EL and a type three,
because together those two characteristics combine to create a very
different-looking type of meteorite, at least with regards to
previously known EL3's.


>As far is it being an Aubrite, there is the lack of a
distinctive type of microstructure (polysynthetic
twinning) in the enstatite grains in the Al Haggounia
material, but which to my knowledge is present in all
aubrites (because of their high temperature igneous
history).

True, and well put, but this wouldn't rule out its being a primitive
enstatite achondrite.
It would point towards the stone not being a full-blown
metamorphically altered Aubrite, but, the distinct lack of chondrules
throughout most of the stones also, in classical terms,would rule out
its being a type three.  Thus, as I previously stated, it technically
fits into neither class.


>Finaly, the so-called f-clasts found in some real
Aubrites are from brecciating impactors but this is
not what we're talking about here. The chondrules
found in Al Haggounia 001 are clealy native to the
matrix and not from an impactor so this argument holds
no water.

Well, let's assume that it was a primitive enstatite achondrite parent
body impacted by an EL3...
- I highly doubt this theory myself, but who are you or I to say that
they're not foreign objects?  You stated your own lack of expertise in
your message, and I acknowledge my own here as well.


>It is very obvious to me that Al Haggounia 001 is an
EL Chondrite and with all E-Chondrites, there is a
close kinship to Aubrites.

Well, it has chondrules, but, again, I would not, by any means, settle
to calling it an EL3 - or an Aubrite.  Structurally, it is neither.

Anomalous, anyone?

Regards,
Jason

On Dec 1, 2007 12:07 AM, Adam Hupe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason,
>
> I never called it a type three if you read my emails
> although I am confident with the designation
> scientist

Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)

[Jason Utas]

Hello Adam, Rob, All,

First-off, bit of a brain fart there - I didn't mean Wold Cottage, but
rather was trying to refer to the chondritic clasts in Cumberland
Falls...thanks Bernd...I think I should get some slack for writing
college apps and doing mets at the same time ;)

My point is that typical type three chondrites are generally what one
would call "full" of chondrules.  If you're trying to tell me that
this is a typical type three, I'd simply point out that every other
type three anything has more chondrules.

Thus, this meteorite is clearly different.

It may be an anomalous type three, or something else, but don't just
call it a type three because it just doesn't resemble one grossly.

You say it has chondrules.

I say yes it does, but there's a hell of a lot more matrix there than
there should be for a type three.  And there are simply very few
chondrules in general.

It's neither a typical Aubrite, nor your average type three; it has
characteristics of both, and thus picking one side on the basis of
ignoring the other characteristics of the stone is clearly wrong.

Regards,
Jason

On Nov 30, 2007 1:35 PM, Adam Hupe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jason and List,
>
> Jason, you are talking about primitive achondrites
> containing relic chondrules not evolved and brecciated
> Aubrites. These are well defined chondrules and can be
> found in most of this material. As far as I know, not
> a single chondrule, let alone a relic has ever been
> found in a single Aubrite.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> --- Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello Adam, All,
> >
> > Adam said:
> > > It is obvious that this meteorite contains
> > chondrules
> > > therefore calling it anything but a chondrite
> > doesn't
> > > make any sense to me.
> >
> > Wold Cottage, as well as several Acapulcoites and
> > Winonaites contain
> > chondrule remains, though the official definitions
> > of such meteorites
> > (Aubrite, Acap., Awin.) clearly state that
> > chondrules should not be
> > present, these being classes of achondrites.
> >
> > The mere thought that a few unequilibrated
> > chondrules found after
> > inspecting vast amounts of material by microscope
> > should dictate the
> > meteorite's class is repulsive to me, especially
> > when the majority of
> > the stone is clearly devoid of such features in
> > general.
> >
> > If one found an unaltered type three chondrule in a
> > section of Gao,
> > would that make the fall a type three chondrite?  I
> > daresay not, and I
> > see no reason for this to be the case with whatever
> > names by which
> > this material (maybe it's an anomalous enstatite
> > chondrite/achondrite
> > - but it's certainly not a type three chondrite) is
> > known.
> >
> > To be perfectly frank, classing such an oddity as a
> > type three is
> > contrary to scientific principles as a whole.  With
> > regards to
> > science, new information should not be changed to
> > fit existing
> > categorical systems, but rather systems should
> > change to fit new
> > information.
> >
> > So -
> >
> > Clearly there are a few chondrules in this
> > meteorite, but the vast
> > majority of the stone appears Aubritic.
> >
> > Thus, to call it one or the other is simply wrong.
> >
> > If anything, call it anomalous, call it a primitive
> > achondrite, or
> > make up a new name, but for the sake of meteoritics,
> > call it something
> > that fits the rock itself; don't call it an Aubrite
> > or a type three
> > chondrite because it is *neither* of these, at least
> > as these terms
> > are currently defined by science.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jason
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2007 11:02 AM, Adam Hupe
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Dear List,
> > >
> > > I just thought I would throw my opiniion into the
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > It is obvious that this meteorite contains
> > chondrules
> > > therefore calling it anything but a chondrite
> > doesn't
> > > make any sense to me.  These round objects cannot
> > be
> > > mistaken for anything else.  Radial pyroxene and
> > > barred olivine clasts, I don't think so, these are
> > > obvious chondrules.
> > >
> > > This material is heterogeneous so this is a case
> > where
> > > more than the 20 gram type sam

Re: [meteorite-list] AL HAGGOUNIA 001 ("NOT" AUBRITE)

[Jason Utas]

Hello Adam, All,

Adam said:
> It is obvious that this meteorite contains chondrules
> therefore calling it anything but a chondrite doesn't
> make any sense to me.

Wold Cottage, as well as several Acapulcoites and Winonaites contain
chondrule remains, though the official definitions of such meteorites
(Aubrite, Acap., Awin.) clearly state that chondrules should not be
present, these being classes of achondrites.

The mere thought that a few unequilibrated chondrules found after
inspecting vast amounts of material by microscope should dictate the
meteorite's class is repulsive to me, especially when the majority of
the stone is clearly devoid of such features in general.

If one found an unaltered type three chondrule in a section of Gao,
would that make the fall a type three chondrite?  I daresay not, and I
see no reason for this to be the case with whatever names by which
this material (maybe it's an anomalous enstatite chondrite/achondrite
- but it's certainly not a type three chondrite) is known.

To be perfectly frank, classing such an oddity as a type three is
contrary to scientific principles as a whole.  With regards to
science, new information should not be changed to fit existing
categorical systems, but rather systems should change to fit new
information.

So -

Clearly there are a few chondrules in this meteorite, but the vast
majority of the stone appears Aubritic.

Thus, to call it one or the other is simply wrong.

If anything, call it anomalous, call it a primitive achondrite, or
make up a new name, but for the sake of meteoritics, call it something
that fits the rock itself; don't call it an Aubrite or a type three
chondrite because it is *neither* of these, at least as these terms
are currently defined by science.

Regards,
Jason

On Nov 30, 2007 11:02 AM, Adam Hupe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> I just thought I would throw my opiniion into the
> discussion.
>
> It is obvious that this meteorite contains chondrules
> therefore calling it anything but a chondrite doesn't
> make any sense to me.  These round objects cannot be
> mistaken for anything else.  Radial pyroxene and
> barred olivine clasts, I don't think so, these are
> obvious chondrules.
>
> This material is heterogeneous so this is a case where
> more than the 20 gram type sample is required in order
> to interpret this meteorite properly.  If pieces that
> contain round objects are omitted from study, I can
> see why it could be interpreted as an Aubrite.
> Another thing working against it is that it does not
> look anything like other known Aubrites.  To me, this
> is an EL Chondrite, nothing more, nothing less, still
> a cool find.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] BIG VENUS NEWS

[Jason Utas]

Larry, Sterling,
Even supposing that there had been some sort of life on Venus, the
odds that the development of life there would have even somewhat
paralleled evolution on Earth is so unlikely as to be, in my opinion,
nearly impossible.  Should there have been any life on Venus, it is
logical to think that such life would have initially have developed to
utilize sunlight as a form of energy (as our plants do), but the
evolution of any forms of animal life would likely be a far cry from
anything that ever came to live on Earth.
That said, considering the substantial increase in the amount of solar
radiation that Venus gleans from sitting in a closer orbit, I think
it's safe to say that any sort of life would have a hell of a time of
trying to develop complex forms in such a biological oven.
- And that said, the odds that any life would form at all are quite minuscule.
It is possible, but is highly (very, very, very highly) unlikely.
Jason


On Nov 29, 2007 10:21 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Sterling:
>
> I have not had a chance to read the articles in general, but if Venus is
> still losing its water, and we are talking about this happening with the
> last 1/2 billion years or so, is there any chance that it was realted to
> the global resurfacing of Venus? Maybe Venus did have swamps and dinosaurs
> a billion yers ago and then wham, along came golbal resurfacing which
> boiled off the water and decomposed the carbonates!
>
> Speculatively,
>
> Larry Lebofsky
>
>
> On Thu, November 29, 2007 1:10 am, Sterling K. Webb wrote:
> > Hi, List,
> >
> >
> > ESA had a big (press) conference to release the first
> > findings of the Venus Express spacecraft. There will be nine papers by
> > principal investigators in "Nature," next issue. So all the science
> > reporters were there, of course, to get the inside story.
> >
> > The spacecraft detected "whistlers." Whistlers are
> > sharp, short, frequency decreasing bursts of low frequency radio waves. You
> > can detect whistlers on Earth by connecting an old-fashioned quarter-mile
> > wire antenna to a stereo set, as the radio waves are in the audio
> > frequencies! They are caused by lightning. Earlier indications of
> > lightning on Venus have always been dismissed as "mistaken" but it appears
> > we were mistaken about being mistaken.
> >
> > The second big story is the confirmation of the old Pioneer
> > probe's detection of a high ratio of deuterium-to-hydrogen in the
> > atmosphere of Venus. Well, that's only the small end of the big news. The
> > big end of the big news is that the D-to-H ratio of the UPPER atmosphere
> > is 2.5 times greater than it is in the lower atmosphere.
> >
> > Well, you say, scratching your head, so what? It means that
> > water loss from Venus is going on right now, not a few billion years ago or
> > just one billion years ago. No, Venus is losing water right now. The
> > deuterium is heavier than hydrogen; when water is split and stripped from
> > the top of the atmosphere by the solar wind, more deuterium remains than
> > hydrogen. The fact that there is a higher D-to-H ratio up top means that
> > the water loss is both very active and on-going, that Venus is still
> > bleeding water, that the water loss did NOT begin anciently, but recently
> > (cosmically
> > speaking, say 400 or 500 million years, or even more recently).
> >
> > The reporters had heavy going trying to figure this out, quite
> > possibly because the Venus "specialists" are also having heavy going trying
> > to figure all this out, mostly because reality is doing such a poor job of
> > matching theory. They were disapproving of these unruly facts. Example:
> > whistlers, yes, but not from lightning. From what? It's a mystery.
> >
> > There isn't one press account I can paste in here to sum it
> > all up, since every press account varies according to which "expert" was
> > being interviewed. So, here's the major news stories, with a scorecard...
> >
> > Space.com believes the lightning but doubts the water:
> > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071128-venus-express.html
> >
> >
> > The NY Times doubts the lightning, believes the water,
> > but doesn't know what it's all about:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/science/space/29venus.html?ref=space
> >
> >
> > The Independent believes in more lightning, thinks the lack of
> > a magnetic field caused the loss of water, not global warming:
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3204073.ece
> >
> >
> > The AFP says Venus was "doomed by global warming!"
> > http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFOc6GAb7TDdajJhw-5xwwcfFZRA
> >
> >
> > The Houston Chronicle thinks Venus was "just too close to the Sun"
> > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5337291.html
> > (The last time I was in Houston, I flew into Hobby at 7pm
> > and it was 107 F. in the shade, and there was no shade as all the leaves
> > had died and dropped off from the heat. This is a "natural" theory for a
> > Houston paper, I thi

Re: [meteorite-list] Freedom of religion/1968 South Africa Fall (?)

[Jason Utas]

Ed,

The second I tell you when you can and can't pray (as well as for what
you can pray) is the very second that you can tell me when I am able
to use a historical figure's name in any writing I see fit to put to
email or paper or any such thing.
Until then, by god, I'll not pay you any heed until the lord himself
does striketh me downeth.
And if you have a problem with it, I say you let your god wreak his
own havoc upon my soul and body, heaven so help me.  I doubt (s)he/it,
or they need(s) your help.
Do me a favour, and don't talk to me about praying.  There's enough of
that on channel 180, and, to be frank, I prefer to spend my time
watching Scooby-Doo.  You do as you please though; it's a damned free
country, and it's a damned free list.
Except when it comes to cursing.
Real cursing.
At which point, our lord and savior Art (I don't wish to mock you,
Art; for the purposes of this list, that's effectively what you are,
metaphorically speaking) tends to intervene and ban the guilty
offender.
If you have a problem with what's going on here, talk to him.  He'll
surely put an end to it, should it need attention.
"We people," as you so deemed us in your email, just get annoyed, and
there's naught we can do, should we want to (and in this case, I feel
particularly disinclined).
Until then, meteorites?

On that note, has anyone ever heard anything about a fall in South
Africa in 1968?  There's no reference to any such even in a bulletin,
nor the catalog, etc, etc.  I've looked into it about as far as
possible and haven't had any luck.  Unfortunately, there's a stone and
a newspaper clipping that say that something did, in fact,
happen...near Queenstown, perhaps...I'm working on figuring out the
origin of the clipping.

[Tarzan call]*,
Jason

^*Suggested spelling, anyone?

On Nov 19, 2007 9:37 PM, E.P. Grondine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> And what do you people have against prayer?
> my apologies to all offended by my exasperation...
>
> E.P.
>
>
>  
> 
> Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> Make Yahoo! your homepage.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> __
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Leigh Anne DelRay

[Jason Utas]

Hello Bob, All,
Bob Evans felt attacked by my email that pertained to *his* auction of
the Photographic Catalogue of Antarctic Meteorites, which received a
bid of $999.99 in the closing seconds of bidding.
I would like to make it clear to everyone that I do not accuse him,
nor the bidder (pas520, whoever he or she might be), of shill bidding,
but wished to use the example solely as one of an auction that looked
odd, but which was due entirely to luck/bad bidding strategy on the
part of another bidder.
Bob took this as a slight at himself, and I would like to make it
clear that I was not accusing him of anything fraudulent with that
statement.
Regards,
Jason


On Nov 11, 2007 10:39 PM, Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill, All,
>
> I just checked the thread: the claims against Leigh-Anne were
> unsubstantiated, and, seeing as she is a well-regarded member of this
> community (by most), I would suggest that list members not spread
> about such rubbish unless they have evidence to back it up.  Saying
> that there was an odd bidding history on one item means nothing when
> put next to the subsequent years that she's spent amongst us,
> especially when there was no real evidence supporting the fact that
> she actually did shill it.
>
> People mess around on ebay - take, for example, the Photographic
> Catalogue of Antarctic Meteorites that recently sold on ebay.  A few
> seconds before the end, a bidder put in $999.99.  That's perfect
> shilling strategy (say the other high bidder puts in $1000, even,
> they'll be forced to pay the maximum amount), and yet, no one either
> noticed nor cared.  Some people just don't think through what they're
> doing or understand ebay when they're placing bids.  That's just the
> way it goes.
> I've seen many a crazier thing on ebay - take, for example, the
> occasional NWA that goes for $1/g.  Going market price for average
> NWA's is between four and five cents per gram - ~1/20 of the amount.
> Some people just happen to surf ebay and come across a piece of space,
> something that they never thought that they could own before, and they
> decide that they want it.  Some of them happen to be...not so smart
> when it comes to bidding.
>
> The general consensus at the time (three years ago) was that Bill was
> wrong in his accusation, and yet he continued to try to sully
> Leigh-Anne's name even after this was decided.
> I see no reason to try to convince Bill that he's wrong; after three
> years of remaining fixed on this, I don't think I'm going to be able
> to change his viewpoint, but the least I can say, Bill, is this:
> Even if you did think that someone - anyone - had done such a thing,
> it was $350 - and it was three years ago.  Get over it.  You have no
> right to post such ridiculous and unsubstantiated libel on here (never
> mind three years later, after the issue has been resolved), especially
> when something as horrible as this comes up.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Nov 11, 2007 9:10 PM, xxx wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:54:26 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> > >Hello Bill, All,
> > >I'm confused, Bill.  I asked you for any evidence of this, and you
> > >failed to respond, but did choose to reply to another message on the
> > >same thread a few minutes later.
> >
> > This rang a bell for me, so I looked it up.  There was a thread on this 
> > back in
> > mid-January 2005, under the subject "Talk about a good idea".  Check the
> > archives if you want a refresher.
> >
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Leigh Anne DelRay

[Jason Utas]

Bill, All,

I just checked the thread: the claims against Leigh-Anne were
unsubstantiated, and, seeing as she is a well-regarded member of this
community (by most), I would suggest that list members not spread
about such rubbish unless they have evidence to back it up.  Saying
that there was an odd bidding history on one item means nothing when
put next to the subsequent years that she's spent amongst us,
especially when there was no real evidence supporting the fact that
she actually did shill it.

People mess around on ebay - take, for example, the Photographic
Catalogue of Antarctic Meteorites that recently sold on ebay.  A few
seconds before the end, a bidder put in $999.99.  That's perfect
shilling strategy (say the other high bidder puts in $1000, even,
they'll be forced to pay the maximum amount), and yet, no one either
noticed nor cared.  Some people just don't think through what they're
doing or understand ebay when they're placing bids.  That's just the
way it goes.
I've seen many a crazier thing on ebay - take, for example, the
occasional NWA that goes for $1/g.  Going market price for average
NWA's is between four and five cents per gram - ~1/20 of the amount.
Some people just happen to surf ebay and come across a piece of space,
something that they never thought that they could own before, and they
decide that they want it.  Some of them happen to be...not so smart
when it comes to bidding.

The general consensus at the time (three years ago) was that Bill was
wrong in his accusation, and yet he continued to try to sully
Leigh-Anne's name even after this was decided.
I see no reason to try to convince Bill that he's wrong; after three
years of remaining fixed on this, I don't think I'm going to be able
to change his viewpoint, but the least I can say, Bill, is this:
Even if you did think that someone - anyone - had done such a thing,
it was $350 - and it was three years ago.  Get over it.  You have no
right to post such ridiculous and unsubstantiated libel on here (never
mind three years later, after the issue has been resolved), especially
when something as horrible as this comes up.

Jason


On Nov 11, 2007 9:10 PM, xxx wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:54:26 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >Hello Bill, All,
> >I'm confused, Bill.  I asked you for any evidence of this, and you
> >failed to respond, but did choose to reply to another message on the
> >same thread a few minutes later.
>
> This rang a bell for me, so I looked it up.  There was a thread on this back 
> in
> mid-January 2005, under the subject "Talk about a good idea".  Check the
> archives if you want a refresher.
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Leigh Anne DelRay

[Jason Utas]

Hello Bill, All,
I'm confused, Bill.  I asked you for any evidence of this, and you
failed to respond, but did choose to reply to another message on the
same thread a few minutes later.
I agree with Greg.  This most certainly reflects upon you in a sour
light, Bill.  To say such things about a kind member of the community
with no evidence to support your claims is nothing short of insulting,
given the situation.
Leigh-Ann, you have my best wishes for as speedy recovery as possible.
 I hope all goes as well as it could for you.
Jason

On Nov 11, 2007 9:12 PM, GREG LINDH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   Bill,
>
>I think your post says way more about you than it does about Leigh Anne.
>  Personally, I'll be praying for a successfull operation and a full
> recovery for Leigh Anne.
>
>Greg Lindh
>
>
>
>
> >From: Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Notkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Leigh Anne DelRay
> >Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:17:58 -0800
>
> >
> >Leigh Anne is a notorious swindler with a myriad of ebay shills. That said,
> >I wish her well.
> >
> >Bill
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:35:01 -0700
> > > To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > > Subject: [meteorite-list] Leigh Anne DelRay
> > >
> > > Dear Listees:
> > >
> > > Many of you know Leigh Anne DelRay. She is a jeweler and silversmith,
> > > meteorite collector, and is admired for her meteorite jewelry which is
> > > regularly featured at the annual Denver meteorite auction. She lived in
> > > Denver for a number of years and was a member of the Denver COMETS.
> > > Just about a year ago she moved to Tucson,  and now works for me part
> > > time as an office and design assistant. She is also a well known seller
> > > on eBay.
> > >
> > > As Leigh Anne has many friends in the meteorite community, I felt I
> > > should let you all know that she is going into hospital, here in
> > > Tucson, for serious heart surgery on Monday. Her surgeon has a good
> > > success rate with this very specialized operation, but there is
> > > considerable risk involved.
> > >
> > > If any of you would care to send get well cards, notes, or letters to
> > > Leigh Anne, please address them to my P.O. Box, and I will deliver them
> > > to her as soon as she's well enough to receive visitors.
> > >
> > > Leigh Anne DelRay
> > > c/o Geoff Notkin
> > > P.O. Box 36652
> > > Tucson, AZ 85740
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > > Geoff N.
> > > www.aerolite.org
> > >
> > > __
> > > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >__
> >Meteorite-list mailing list
> >Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Bassikounou Vs Mali + smell

[Jason Utas]

Well, first-off, I'd have to say that you're comparing apples and oranges.
Simply put, the specimen depicted in the first two pictures appears to
have had a sustained independent flight, and has developed a crust
that can truly be deemed 'primary.'
The second specimen seems as though it might have developed something
of a layer of primary crust on one side, but it hardly seems as though
comparing this surface to that of the first specimen to determine
which fall either stone is from would be a good thing to do, in this
case, if any.
The crust of the more ablated side of the third specimen appears to be
intermediate in formation between the first and second stone; whereas
the first stone displayed true primary crust, and the second an
in-between (between secondary and true primary - it has moderately
thick crust, but surfaces are not yet rounded, etc) crust, the third
stone appears to have primary crust on one side, but the stone has
clearly gone through less independent flight time than the first
stone, and more than the second (well, this may not be true; if one
meteorite had a higher entry velocity, the time might not have been
greater, but rather the velocity and thus amount of energy to which
this side was exposed would have been greater, but the principle is
the same).
Thus, I find it impossible to use such surface characteristics to
compare meteorites.  The two might have been mixed up, but who's to
say...
I would say that you should probably just go with the labels given you
- odds are that they're right (unless you're accusing dealers of
trying to cheat you, which I think wouldn't be the best thing to do
without real cause...).
I can't comment on the smell - maybe the dealer or supplier of the
stones was a smoker...?  This has happened with a number of our
meteorites, namely a Chinga individual, but there have been a few
others...
Regards,
Jason

On 11/6/07, Moser Francesco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all, on the week-end I was in Munich for the show, as usually a really
> nice show with a lot of beauties (minerals, crystals and fossils) and a lot
> of nice meteorites.
>
> Here's the first question:
> In Ensisheim I have bought a Bassikounou, It's 100% Bassikounou, I'm sure
> because I have no doubt about the dealer.
> In Munich I have bought Bassikounou and Mali, the meteorites are in
> different boxes, but maybe someone have changed the place at the meteorites
> and put the Bassi in the Mali box etc... etc...
> BTW now I have 3 different meteorites and no one is similar to the
> others :))
>
> The Bassi I bought in Ensisheim has a black or brown-black smooth fusion
> crust without metal spot on the surface, the Bassi I bought in Munich has a
> rough black fusion crust with a lot of metal spots
> The Mali has more metal spots on the crust.
>
> I know it's really difficult to say something by my descriptions, so I have
> put some pictures on-line:
>
> Bassikounou bought in Ensisheim:
> http://web.tiscali.it/francesco.moser/Ensisheim Bassi.jpg
> http://web.tiscali.it/francesco.moser/Ensisheim Bassi1.jpg
>
> Bassikounou bought in Munich:
> http://web.tiscali.it/francesco.moser/Munich Bassi.jpg
> http://web.tiscali.it/francesco.moser/Munich Bassi1.jpg
>
> Mali bought in Munich
> http://web.tiscali.it/francesco.moser/Munich Mali.jpg
> http://web.tiscali.it/francesco.moser/Munich Mali1.jpg
>
>
> The second question:
> The meteorite I bought in Munich have a clearly smell of burned, could you
> smell yours Bassi and Mali and tell me if you feel something???
> As you can see from the pictures the Bassi bought in Ensisheim is fully
> crusted and I don't feel any odor, it's normal?
> On the other 2meteorite the odor it's very very difficult to feel something
> from the crust, the odor is clear only on the broken surfaces!
>
> Thank you!!!
> Ciao
>
> <><><><>
> Francesco Moser
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Comet surprise makes it visible to naked eye

[Jason Utas]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/11/05/brighter.comet.ap/index.html

KNOXVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A comet that unexpectedly brightened in
the last couple of weeks and is now visible to the naked eye is
attracting professional and amateur interest.

[image]
Comet 17P/Holmes is seen among the stars of the constellation Perseus
in the North-Eastern sky.

 Paul Lewis, director of astronomy outreach at the University of
Tennessee, is drawing students to the roof of the Nielsen Physics
Building for special viewings of Comet 17P/Holmes.

The comet is exploding and its coma, a cloud of gas and dust
illuminated by the sun, has grown to be bigger than the planet
Jupiter. The comet lacks the tail usually associated with such
celestial bodies but can be seen in the northern sky, in the
constellation Perseus, as a fuzzy spot of light about as bright as the
stars in the Big Dipper.

"This is truly a celestial surprise," Lewis said. "Absolutely amazing."

Until October 23, the comet had been visible to modern astronomers
only with a telescope, but that night it suddenly erupted and
expanded.

A similar burst in 1892 led to the comet's discovery by Edwin Holmes.

"This is a once-in-a-lifetime event to witness, along the lines of
when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 smashed into Jupiter back in 1994," Lewis
said.

Scientists speculate the comet has exploded because there are
sinkholes in its nucleus, giving it a honeycomb-like structure. The
collapse exposed comet ice to the sun, which transformed the ice into
gas.

"What comets do when they are near the sun is very unpredictable,"
Lewis said. "We expect to see a coma cloud and a tail, but this is
more like an explosion, and we are seeing the bubble of gas and dust
as it expands away from the center of the blast."

Experts aren't sure how long the comet's show will last but estimate
it could be weeks if not months. Using a telescope or binoculars help
bring the comet's details into view, they said. E-mail to a friend

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Rocks From Space Picture of the Day - October 30, 2007

[Jason Utas]

Hello MIke, Keith, All,
Haha, alright; I find it odd that you'd go so far as to state that
it's "simply the best that's ever been found," when it, in all
likelihood, it isn't, but as to your other comment, I'd like to say
that I wasn't trying to accuse Keith of anything.  Simply put, it
looks like a Gibeon, and I thought this should be mentioned in case it
was of dubious origin (eg., purchased without a label, etc).
I didn't know that you and Keith were hunting around the crater thirty
or so years ago...damn, I wish one could go and hunt out there today.
Best Regards,
Jason


On 10/30/07, Mike Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jason I can assure you it is a Canyon Diablo I was there when it
> was found. It is simply the best CD ever found. Sometimes things are
> not what they seem to be, just simply what they are said to be.  I
> will state this in public but I prefer to say it in private. Keith is
> my friend and when he said it was a Canyon Diablo he was stating the
> truth.
>
> On 10/30/07, Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello All, Keith,
> > Are you sure that's not a Gibeon?
> > I've seen a good few Canyon Diablo's and Gibeon's, and, to be frank,
> > I've seen a number of Gib's like it, and no CD's that've looked
> > remotely similar.  The patina is pretty typical of Gibeon as well,
> > rather different than your average Canyon Diablo, I think all would
> > agree...
> > It brings to mind a Gibeon offered at Bonhams a few years ago by
> > Darryl Pitt (I'm fairly sure t'was his), though I believe that it was
> > a tad smaller.
> > I'm curious - what's its provenance?
> > Regards,
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > On 10/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > http://www.spacerocksinc.com/October_30_2007.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ** See what's new at 
> > > http://www.aol.com
> > > __
> > > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> > >
> > __
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
>
> --
> Mike Miller 230 Greenway Dr. Kingman Az 86401
> www.meteoritefinder.com
> 928-753-6825
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] best meteowrong, yet

[Jason Utas]

Hello 'Mckinney Trammell,' All
Right - if I'm not mistaken, the supposed Mojave iron meteorite
similar to Albion, from ebay...well...
It looks like slag/metal production waste (those bubbles are pretty
telling), or maybe the result of some smelting gone-awry.  The
texture's rather off for meteorites, disregarding even the porosity;
it looks highly granular - even more so than a recrystallized
meteorite...more like low-quality smelting products.
You state that they're brittle, like meteorites...iron meteorites
aren't brittle, and the crust that you mention is probably a product
of oxidation, whether from the elements or from exposure to extreme
heat (which would speed up oxidation of iron in a manner that might
fool someone looking for fusion crust).
I've gambled on ebay before, and have yet to be disappointed; that's
one I chose not to bet on.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
Regards,
Jason

On 10/30/07, mckinney trammell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> anybody know what this stuff might be?
> --- Darren Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:48:27 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
> >
> > >email for pix. this thing fakes out the public like
> > >all get out. found in a fl field- WHAT IS IT? no
> > >magnetism, brittle, black crust, all metal,
> > crystals, etc.
> >
> > Hosted here:
> >
> > http://webpages.charter.net/garrison6328/wrongs/
> >
>
>
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Rocks From Space Picture of the Day - October 30, 2007

[Jason Utas]

Hello All, Keith,
Are you sure that's not a Gibeon?
I've seen a good few Canyon Diablo's and Gibeon's, and, to be frank,
I've seen a number of Gib's like it, and no CD's that've looked
remotely similar.  The patina is pretty typical of Gibeon as well,
rather different than your average Canyon Diablo, I think all would
agree...
It brings to mind a Gibeon offered at Bonhams a few years ago by
Darryl Pitt (I'm fairly sure t'was his), though I believe that it was
a tad smaller.
I'm curious - what's its provenance?
Regards,
Jason


On 10/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.spacerocksinc.com/October_30_2007.html
>
>
>
>
> ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Great picture that summarizes Peru'sscientific minds.

[Jason Utas]

Hola All,
The trouble with this fellow's logic is namely that he appears to
believe that the study of weathering effects on meteorites is more
important than the study of what is (at this point, probably 'was')
likely the largest fresh sample of the remnants of a solar nebula
currently on the planet...
If you'd like to study weathering effects on anything, go buy a
Juancheng, Amgala, Mali, etc - something of which there's a lot about
and available for study.  There's simply no reason to destroy such a
unique and scientifically important sample...merely to see how quickly
it becomes destroyed, especially when such a meager amount has made it
into scientific hands, never mind those of anyone else.

To be perfectly frank, I wouldn't put a Rembrandt out in the rain for
a study regarding how quickly paint weathers outdoors...I daresay you
wouldn't either.


With regards to rock splitting and your statement: "We take our
technologies for granted, but when do we ever try for
ourselves?"
I don't know about you, but I haven't used an arrowhead in...well,
ever.  Interesting statement, but a nonsequiter.  Nice try at changing
the subject...

Why don't you stop being so damn contrary just for the hell of it -
it's obvious what you're doing, "Thaddeus."  If you have a bone to
pick with Michael, whoever you really are, keep it off-list, please.
It's not giving anyone anything remotely close to useful information.

Jason


On 10/26/07, JKGwilliam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sterling & List,
> I was thinking exactly the same...;-)
>
> John
>
>
> At 10:27 AM 10/26/2007, Sterling K. Webb wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> > No "laws" need be invoked. The process is an
> >endogenous one.
> >
> > I have just completed an analysis of Thaddeus'
> >last 37 (a prime number) posts and have graphed their
> >frequency against their cross product of their fractal
> >dimension and the inverse of their entropy. I have
> >discovered a series of increases in his posting frequency
> >which doubles with a value that increasingly approaches
> >that of every 4.6692 reiterations.
> >
> > That number is the Feigenbaum constant, of course,
> >and reveals their content to be a one-dimensional chaos
> >with a period-doubling attractor. Shortly, their fractal
> >dimension will fall to zero, their entropy will rise to infinity,
> >and their source, the hypothetical Thaddeus Entity, will
> >undergo quantum "evaporation."
> >
> >
> >Sterling K. Webb
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Darren Garrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:09 AM
> >Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Great picture that summarizes Peru'sscientific
> >minds.
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:01:04 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
> >
> > >WOW, it was a cartoon. I see it as perfect, showing
> > >Peru's scientists as being confused about the need to
> > >preserve their one and only meteorite fall from
> > >disentigrating. The Third Reich never really entered
> > >my mind.
> > >You have some serious issues, please deal with
> > >them.Michael Farmer
> >
> >I invoke Godwin's Law on Thaddeus.
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> >
> >(Also Sturgeon's Law)
> >__
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Thaddeus Besedin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 10:53 AM
> >Subject: [meteorite-list] self-rightous posturing, African Bias,and "The
> >Pearl"
> >
> >
> >Without citation, I'm self-righteous (or self
> >confirming), but a book by Steinbeck, called "The
> >Pearl," is appropriate for the problem of inequality
> >and prejudice that the meteorite trade can perpetuate
> >by affecting prices and wrinkling reputations.
> >You guys all think I'm on one by now; some people like
> >Mike or myself are vocal about things we may later
> >regret. My problem,  it seems, is premature inclusion
> >of misleading non-information as premises for argument
> >(I'm a victim of continental philosophy), but
> >scientific facts, like carbon dates or climate models,
> >are NEVER distorted in my posts. My difficulty is with
> >legal citation, it seems. So, facts and some fallacy,
> >but not shams and lies... .
> >
> >WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE oF INFORMATION, though.
> >
> >
> >__
> >Meteorite-list mailing list
> >Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] INTERVIEW WITH CARANCAS LOCALS

[Jason Utas]

David, All,

The point is that if such a violent incident had occurred in
rural-any-small-town here in the US, people's minds would undoubtedly
jump straight to the least rational cause - terrorism.  You may say
otherwise, but you know it's trueeven though the supposition that
terrorists would have any reason to attack anything other than a
building or person who was highly symbolic or economically vital to
our infrastructure or identity as a nation.

Regardless of who says it, if it doesn't belong, it doesn't belong.
As Jan said, "Your comments are not very helpful."  They simply
disparaged and insulted people who are no different than those in the
same economic and social demographic who live in this country, and
furthermore, they have less access to any form of higher education as
well as exposure to worldly events as do those who live here - and
some of those who live here would probably go on to say that it was
some sort of a warning from godregarding what, I have no idea, but
those voices always seem to come out of the cracks following any sort
of disaster...

Needless to say, it's simply uncalled for, and I don't know why you're
getting so uppity about this, as you were clearly in the wrong in
writing that.  Your website may be a great asset to the
meteorite-collecting (and research) community as a whole, but that
just doesn't justify what you said.  To be frank, I don't particularly
care about your initial email; there's been enough on that subject
along those lines, and it's been talked both ways for weeks now.  The
following responses, on the other hand, were extremely inappropriate.

It wouldn't matter if Nininger himself had posted that to the list; he
would still have been wrong in doing it.

Cool off...

Jason

On 10/19/07, David Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Art removes me I'll be happy to leave. It's people like you who make
> me vomit all over this "LIST". And don't ever visit my website which
> contains a quarter of a million words bringing the most current
> meteorite research to those interested, including total morons like you.
> You are hereby forbidden to visit it. I do not want to contribute
> anything else to this LIST or to you, you small-brained idiot. Kiss my ass!
>
> David
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Not a "Peekskill"...- or is it?

[Jason Utas]

Sure doesn't look like a meteorite...at all
Have a look for yourself:

http://www.ksn.com/news/also/10574416.html

Regards,
Jason

On 10/18/07, Mike Groetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.dailytimesonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071016/NEWS01/71016045/1002/NEWS01
>
> DELAWARE: Aviation officials puzzled about so-called
> UFO that slammed vehicle
> By Alan J. McCombs
> The News Journal
>
>
>  It didn't come from an airplane.
>
>  The mystery about the origin of a 16-inch,
> unidentified falling object that fell from the sky
> Monday and sliced "like butter" through the hood of a
> parked vehicle deepened Tuesday, after an official
> with the Federal Aviation Administration announced
> that whatever it is, it's not a piece of aircraft.
>
>  At about 4 p.m. Monday, the brownish, hook-shaped
> piece of metal crashed through the roof of an
> unoccupied 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander parked at the
> Happy Harry's drugstore at 536 Main St. in Stanton.
> Its arrival came with a boom that one witness told
> Mill Creek Fire Company Chief James Howell sounded
> like an explosion.
>
>  The SUV's owner, Susan Wilson, said she was inside
> the drugstore at the time. When she returned to her
> car, she found ash and debris on the driver's seat and
> gaping hole in the vehicle's roof. Nestled on the rear
> passenger side floor she found the hot object still
> smoldering from its descent.
>
>  "The metal was still too hot to handle," Delaware
> State Police spokesman Cpl. Jeff Whitmarsh said.
>
>  Once the mysterious object had cooled down, it was
> turned over to the FAA personnel from the Philadelphia
> office. The federal agency was doing some last
> procedural work on the object Tuesday, but FAA
> spokesman Jim Peters said he's confident it didn't
> come from any plane.
>
>  Wilson, of Wilmington and her fiance Michael Roberto
> have struggled with how
> to deal with the aftermath of the object falling from
> the sky. Their SUV has been towed to a repair shop and
> the couple is waiting on the bill. Lacking answers to
> what launched the hunk of metal, Wilson's insurance
> has asked her to pay the deductible for the damage.
>
>
>
>
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Amusing Ebay Auction

[Jason Utas]

Hello All,
Not the usual scammer, etc - this one I just find funny and thought
you might like to see:



or

_http://cgi.ebay.com/GAO-Iron-Meteorite_W0QQitemZ270175803889QQihZ017QQcategoryZ3239QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem_

Just remove the < > or _ _ and have a look - I thought his take on
geologic history was...amusing, to say the least.

Jason
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Tucson Show Info?

[Jason Utas]

Hello Dave,
It's always the first weekend in February, or at least has been in the
past, with the party being that Friday night, the auctions over
Saturday (Sat. night = Michael Blood's) and Sunday (Lang's).
Unless there's some odd change for this year (over the past decade or
so, it hasn't deviated from this schedule), it's the same as above...
Regards,
Jason

On 10/9/07, Dave Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I need to start making plans for the upcoming Tucson
> Show, and was wondering if anyone knows what the exact
> dates for the main weekend are? The auctions, party
> etc? Thanks in advance!
>   Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for 
> today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
> http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Response to Randall, Michael

[Jason Utas]

Hello "XXX," Randall, etc,

I'm going to take the time to go through this bit-by-bit.

>I reviewed the report sent in by Mr. Farmer today and then I asked my
Peruvian wife to her to call my friends in Desaguadero to find out
what the situation is. I read Mike's field report and he had mentioned
that they started to pump out the water in the crater and I was
curious to know if they found the meteorite.

Just curious? Based on your previous emails, I would personally
believe that an attempt such as his, coming from a person who -so-
exploits the natives of wherever meteorites happen to fall by paying
the finders drastically -more- than you paid them for samples
($0.50/g for samples that you say you're looking to sell for $30-60/g)
would have caused you to become at the very least furious.
- Who wouldn't be, with all of that lost profit?

>This is the story as my wife is relating to me after she talked to my
friend. Major Victor Anaya Barrientos of the Peruvian National Police
located in the town of Desaguadero.
Apparently, Mike and his associated went to the town of Desaguadero
and used their method of posting flyers and soliciting citizens to
sell them meteorites.They told people that the meteorite pieces were
very very valuable and they would pay good money for any samples. I
guess they made offers on a per gram basis that sent these people into
a frenzy.

And they didn't do this with your offer.  I wonder why...not

>They never went to the municipality and asked for any kind
of permission.

Please send a copy of whatever Peruvian law states that meteorites are
the property of the municipality, as opposed to that of the land
owner.  It's true, the pieces that Michael bought from the police, he
paid the police for, but in that case, the police should simply
forward the money to its rightful owners.  Peruvian law is the only
one to blame in this scenario.
Furthermore, I take it you have written consent of the municipality to
collect meteoric specimens?  Just wondering...whether or not it is
actually required is a matter of Peruvian national law, an area in
which I lack expertise, but it appears to me that you probably do as
well.

>And they never made any contacts with scientists or
researchers in Peru.

These scientists have proven themselves to be almost as intelligent as
you with regard to meteoritics and the recovery of such a large buried
mass.  I would personally deem it worth contacting at least some
officials beforehand, but to be perfectly frank, I am 100% sure that,
using my highschool physics qualifications as well as knowledge
gleaned on the subject of meteoritics over my past nine years of
collecting, I know more genrally about meteorites and impact mechanics
than they do.  I'm not talking about the real science of it -
macroscopy, etc, but with regard to recovering samples and college
level physics, I am certain that I am more proficient than they.  I
could very well be wrong, but, well, prove it.

>Local citizens swarmed to the site to look for
pieces and almost caused a riot.

"almost caused a riot."  This statement is clearly open to
interpretation and should be looked at closely.  "almost caused a
riot" implies that there was no actual riot and the degree to which
the event "almost" became a riot is something that I think you have
exaggerated to accomplish your own ends - of making Michael Farmer
look bad.  The only thing that this tells us, then, is that there was
some disturbance due to the amount of money that Michael offered for
material, which in turn shows everyone that what you offered must have
been a pittance in comparison.

>Apparently, the Spanish speaking
person with Mike told the people of the community that there was a big
meteorite in the hole and it was worth alot of money. This is the
equivalent of starting a revolution. The people gathered at the
municipality demanding that the government extract the meteorite.

Good - maybe now something will be done about it...those scientists of
which you speak, if they've even taken the time to visit the site yet,
haven't done a single thing about saving/preserving what is likely the
largest stony meteorite ever to fall in one piece.  If the common
people get worked up about selling it to whoever wants to buy it, I
say go ahead - at least the science won't be lost.
It's true, the crater is of value in itself, but surely some Peruvian
scientists have gone down there by now and taken some relatively
shallow cores to cross-section the crater so that a conclusion can be
drawn as to whether the hole really is an impact crater or if it's
simply an impact-pit.  Or would you/they prefer that the meteorite rot
for weeks before they get around to it...?

>The mayor of the city complied under duress, and started to pump out the
water. Meanwhile, news of this revolution went from the local to the
national level.

Hell, at least something is being done to prevent the wasting of such
a historic specimen...and you say the national government got 

[meteorite-list] Fw: New Lunar Available-2

[Jason Utas]

Hello All,
I've been asked to tell you that there are new pictures up on Mbark's
page - here's the url:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

I'd just like to add that, at the moment, Mbark's posted prices are
~1/2 that of what other dealers are asking - for nearly identical, if
not more weathered material...$350-500/g for a monzogabbro when more
typical lunars go for ~$600/g at low prices is simply cheap...

Contact Mbark Ait Lkaid at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more information.

Original message with weights below:
---

Hello All,
I'd like to introduce myself.  My name is Mbark Ait Lkaid, and I am a
well-known meteorite dealer from Rissani, Morocco.  I was the source
of many of the important meteorites that you have come to see grace
the meteorite market over the past several months, namely the renowned
NWA 4483, and today I'd like to announce that I have another very
special meteorite available for collectors: the Lunar Monzogabbro NWA
4734.  I own the main mass, and, am making it available to all of you
on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Here's a copy of the scientific abstract:


Proposed NameNWA  4734
Geographic Coordinates:  Undisclosed.
Erfoud, Morocco
Find : October, 2006

- Show quoted text -
Major classification group) Achondrite (Lunar monzogabbro)
History:  bought from nomads in Erfoud ( Morocco ) in October 2006 and
February 2007.
Physical characteristics:  One complete crusted stone freshly broken
into several pieces for a TKW of 1439 g . Dull black/brown fusion
crust. It is a light gray, coarse grained, pristine magmatic rock
consisting of millimetric phenocrysts mainly of pyroxene and
plagioclase. The few patches where crust is missing are light tanned.

Petrography:  A. Jambon, O. Boudouma and D. Badia. UPVI .
The texture is best described as shergottitic like. Pyroxene are
highly fractured while plagioclase laths, partly transformed to
maskelynite, are only affected by a small number of fractures. Silica
and silica-feldspar glass are minor components. A few impact melt
patches underline the similarity with shergottites further. Ilmenite,
baddeleyite, zirconolite, tranquilityite, pyrrhotite and metal.
Fayalite associated with silica probably results from the dissociation
of iron rich pyroxene. Minor terrestrial alteration.
Mode  (vol %): Cpx 50, Plagioclase + Kspar 32,  silica + glass 7.5,
opaques (ilmenite, Ti-magnetite, pyrrhotite) + fayalite 7, voids +
fractures 3.
Geochemistry: Mineralogy by EMP and SEM.(Trace -ICP-MS-  and major
-ICP-AES- element analyses, J-A Barrat UBO).
Pyroxene exhibit a complex zoning from En65Fs21Wo13 to En2Fs83Wo15
with a FeO/MnO of 78 on the average. A few compositions correspond to
pyroxferroite. Plagioclase is normally zoned from An 91 to An 75 with
a sharp rim. Average composition An 89. Fayalite (Fa 80 to 95).
Chondrite normalized REE pattern with an enrichment of 53 (La) to 40
(Yb). Trace element pattern with negative anomalies of Sr and Eu.
Interstitial glass high in silica (75%) containing microcrysts of K
feldspar with a significant celsian component.


Classification:  According to the grain size, the texture, the
plagioclase composition, the core composition of pyroxenes, the
FeO/MnO ratio in pyroxene and the chemical identity with lunar
basalts, it is classified as a highly shocked lunar gabbro (Mare
basalt).


Type specimens: A total of 20 g of sample and one polished section is
on deposit at UPVI.

Stefan Ralew, Siriusstrasse 19, 12524 Berlin, Germany : 19.6g, 14.1g,10.8g
Aziz Habibi, Palm's hotel, Erfoud, Morocco : 409g, 68 g .
Mbarek Ait Elkaid, Rissani , Morocco 895g (one large piece and about
ten subsidiary pieces and a few smaller fragments).

-

Here is a list of available specimens:

1_443.2gr
2_202  gr
3_49.1gr
4_46.1gr
5_32.7gr
6_24.8gr
7_22.9gr
8_12.6gr
9_11gr
108.3gr
1112.6gr (small fragments)



Here are pictures of all of the specimens:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/



For prices, email:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Kind Regards.
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Doubting Thomas

[Jason Utas]

Hello Tracy, All,

> I have problems with the meteorite theory:
> 1.  Meteorites, as this List knows, come in cold, not hot enough to make the 
> water in the crater "boiling", as several witnesses stated.

If the object was indeed large enough to create a crater (and there
does appear to be one there), then it would have retained at least
something of its original cosmic velocity.  Temperature doesn't matter
in this case - the impactor that created meteor crater in Arizona was
most definitely as cold as space internally when it hit the Arizona
desert, and it released enough kinetic energy when it hit to
create...quite a bit of heat, as you can see by the hole that remains
~25-50,000 years later.

> 2.  Meteorites usually travel a long distance from where the glowing meteor 
> is first seen.  If the locals saw the bolide, chances are good whatever they 
> saw fell a long distance away, not close enough for them to get there soon 
> after it fell.

Again, if this is indeed a meteorite, and a crater-forming one at
that, it would most definitely retain some of its initial cosmic
velocity, and thus likely remain in an incandescent stage of flight
until either it hit, or simply very close to impact.

> 3.  Speaking of rocks, by now, everyone in every little hamlet knows that 
> there are crazy people out there who pay big money for meteorites.  If there 
> was a "shower of rocks" associated with the fall, how come none of the other 
> purported meteorites have been recovered?

This shower of rocks associated with the crater is probably (in my
opinion) merely dirt that rained down following the explosion of
whatever it was that exploded, meteorite or geothermal vent.

> 4.  I await the analysis of a real meteorite specialist, not a geologist, not 
> a vulcanologist, and not media speculation!  No reputable scientist  from 
> outside Peru has so far investigated the crater or seen the alleged meteorite 
> fragments.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but for rather different reasons -
none of the residents mentioned any phonic effects such as sonic
booms, or any of the sounds typically associated with a falling
meteorite.  If it was indeed a meteorite, it would almost certainly
have fragmented to some degree, creating fragments that would have
generated multiple consecutive sonic booms when heard together.  The
sounds associated with such a fall would, I'm fairly sure,  be
stupendous.
Seeing as there has been no mention of such sounds

> 5.  The sickness associated with the crater is a likely red herring, and 
> unrelated to a real meteorite.

I feel inclined to disagree with you on this point - when an event
such as this occurs - terrestrial or not, and the people nearby report
never-before-seen 'mass sickness' and odd smellswhen generating a
hypothesis, it's best to go with the most simple possibility first and
then disprove that before moving on.  Unless you want to come up with
a separate source for the simultaneous appearance of noxious gasses, I
would suggest tying the crater/meteorite/steam explosion to the
noxious gasses.  It's just too much of a coincidence.


To address the previous thread that I was a part of - to be frank,
there's too little information to tell at this point; all we can do is
wait.

Regards,
Jason

>
> My 2 centavos.
> Tracy Latimer
>
> _
> Gear up for Halo(r) 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It's our 
> way of saying thanks for using Windows Live™.
> http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Experts Skeptical of Peruvian Meteorite Impact

[Jason Utas]

> Maybe he meant (or said, and was misreported) that a small crater forming
> event was much more likely to involve an iron parent? That might be a
> reasonable statement.

Given that any given falling meteorite is ~950% more likely to be a
stone than an iron, I don't see this as likely...

With regards to the smaller likelihood of such a small crater being
produced by a stone rather than an iron (Sterling), I would have to
say that without some comparisons as to the relative abundances of
such stony bodies to irons, and without knowing any information such
as entry angle or velocity, not to mention the fact that without such
data, we don't even know what size the body initially was to any
reasonable degree, I would conclude that any such statement would have
had to have been made -very- prematurely.

Jason

On 9/20/07, Chris Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe he meant (or said, and was misreported) that a small crater forming
> event was much more likely to involve an iron parent? That might be a
> reasonable statement.
>
> Chris
> 
> Chris L Peterson
> http://www.cloudbait.com
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jason Utas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Meteorite-list" 
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Experts Skeptical of Peruvian Meteorite Impact
>
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> > This particular bit really makes me wonder about those fellows up at
> > JPL...
> >
> >>It's not impossible that the crater was left by a meteorite, Yeomans
> > said, but if so, then the impact object most likely was small, based
> > on the size of the crater. It would also probably have been a metal
> > meteorite, because those are the only kind of small meteorites that
> > don't burn up as they plummet through Earth's atmosphere, he added.
> > Small stony meteorites rarely make it to the surface.
> >
> > ...Does anyone else find his statement...completely wrong?  I mean -
> > I'm used to such stuff coming out of reporters from god-knows-where,
> > but from a JPL employee...
> >
> > Jason
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Experts Skeptical of Peruvian Meteorite Impact

[Jason Utas]

Hello All,

This particular bit really makes me wonder about those fellows up at JPL...

>It's not impossible that the crater was left by a meteorite, Yeomans
said, but if so, then the impact object most likely was small, based
on the size of the crater. It would also probably have been a metal
meteorite, because those are the only kind of small meteorites that
don't burn up as they plummet through Earth's atmosphere, he added.
Small stony meteorites rarely make it to the surface.

...Does anyone else find his statement...completely wrong?  I mean -
I'm used to such stuff coming out of reporters from god-knows-where,
but from a JPL employee...

Jason

On 9/20/07, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scientists Doubt Meteorite Sickened Peruvians by
> By Andrea Thompson, Space.com, September 19, 2007
>
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070919_peru_meteorite.html
>
> Experts: 'Meteor' Gases Likely Caused by Geyser,
> Fox News September 19, 2007
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297369,00.html
>
> The only saving grace about this story is the last line,
>
> which reads:
>
>
>
> "Peruvian geologists are on their way to examine the crater,
>
> according to news reports."
>
>
>
> Hopefully, this means someone will get down to the bottom
>
> of this mess and determine what really happened.
>
> These stories have been followed by:
>
> Peruvian Geophysicist Confirms Claim of Meteorite Crash
> By Monte Hayes, Associated Press, September. 19, 2007
>
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070919_ap_meteorite_peru.html
>
> It stated:
>
> "Jose
> Mechare, a scientist with Peru's Geological, Mining
> and Metallurgical
> Institute, said a geologist had confirmed
> that it was a "rocky
> meteorite,'' based on the fragments
> analyzed."
>
> The sickness was explained by this line in the article:
>
> "He said
> fear may have provoked psychosomatic ailments."
>
> They article finally statesd:
>
> "She said that after the meteorite struck, small rocks
> rained
> down on the roof of her house for several minutes and she
> feared the
> house was going to collapse."
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play 
> Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
> http://sims.yahoo.com/
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Fwd: New Lunar Available

[Jason Utas]

Hola,
I'm forwarding this on behalf of Mbark Ait Lkaid - I have no part in
this deal, though I must say that I would at least take a look at the
crust on some of the pieces even if not interested in
buying...freshest lunar material I've seen in a good while.
- Jason

---

Hello All,
I'd like to introduce myself.  My name is Mbark Ait Lkaid, and I am a
well-known meteorite dealer from Rissani, Morocco.  I was the source
of many of the important meteorites that you have come to see grace
the meteorite market over the past several months, namely the renowned
NWA 4483, and today I'd like to announce that I have another very
special meteorite available for collectors: the Lunar Monzogabbro NWA
4734.  I own the main mass, and, am making it available to all of you
on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Here's a copy of the scientific abstract:


Proposed NameNWA  4734
Geographic Coordinates:  Undisclosed.
Erfoud, Morocco
Find : October, 2006

- Show quoted text -
Major classification group) Achondrite (Lunar monzogabbro)
History:  bought from nomads in Erfoud ( Morocco ) in October 2006 and
February 2007.
Physical characteristics:  One complete crusted stone freshly broken
into several pieces for a TKW of 1439 g . Dull black/brown fusion
crust. It is a light gray, coarse grained, pristine magmatic rock
consisting of millimetric phenocrysts mainly of pyroxene and
plagioclase. The few patches where crust is missing are light tanned.

Petrography:  A. Jambon, O. Boudouma and D. Badia. UPVI .
The texture is best described as shergottitic like. Pyroxene are
highly fractured while plagioclase laths, partly transformed to
maskelynite, are only affected by a small number of fractures. Silica
and silica-feldspar glass are minor components. A few impact melt
patches underline the similarity with shergottites further. Ilmenite,
baddeleyite, zirconolite, tranquilityite, pyrrhotite and metal.
Fayalite associated with silica probably results from the dissociation
of iron rich pyroxene. Minor terrestrial alteration.
Mode  (vol %): Cpx 50, Plagioclase + Kspar 32,  silica + glass 7.5,
opaques (ilmenite, Ti-magnetite, pyrrhotite) + fayalite 7, voids +
fractures 3.
Geochemistry: Mineralogy by EMP and SEM.(Trace -ICP-MS-  and major
-ICP-AES- element analyses, J-A Barrat UBO).
Pyroxene exhibit a complex zoning from En65Fs21Wo13 to En2Fs83Wo15
with a FeO/MnO of 78 on the average. A few compositions correspond to
pyroxferroite. Plagioclase is normally zoned from An 91 to An 75 with
a sharp rim. Average composition An 89. Fayalite (Fa 80 to 95).
Chondrite normalized REE pattern with an enrichment of 53 (La) to 40
(Yb). Trace element pattern with negative anomalies of Sr and Eu.
Interstitial glass high in silica (75%) containing microcrysts of K
feldspar with a significant celsian component.


Classification:  According to the grain size, the texture, the
plagioclase composition, the core composition of pyroxenes, the
FeO/MnO ratio in pyroxene and the chemical identity with lunar
basalts, it is classified as a highly shocked lunar gabbro (Mare
basalt).


Type specimens: A total of 20 g of sample and one polished section is
on deposit at UPVI.

Stefan Ralew, Siriusstrasse 19, 12524 Berlin, Germany : 19.6g, 14.1g,10.8g
Aziz Habibi, Palm's hotel, Erfoud, Morocco : 409g, 68 g .
Mbarek Ait Elkaid, Rissani , Morocco 895g (one large piece and about
ten subsidiary pieces and a few smaller fragments).

-

Here is a list of available specimens:

1_443.2gr
2_202  gr
3_49.1gr
4_46.1gr
5_32.7gr
6_24.8gr
7_22.9gr
8_12.6gr
9_11gr
108.3gr
1112.6gr (small fragments)



Here are pictures of all of the specimens:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/



For prices, email:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Kind Regards.
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Looking for Terry Boswell

[Jason Utas]

Hello All,
Does anyone know the whereabouts of Terry Boswell?  He's been
inexplicably unreachable for the past several months at the email
address that I have - if anyone has some current contact information,
I'd be much obliged for it.
Thanks,
Jason
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite Questions

[Jason Utas]

Hello Walter, All,
I'll tkae this apart bit by bit.

> For example, why does the rim of meteor crater appear "squared" in some
> photos, while in others it appears very round?  Perspective?  Lighting?
> Extremely highly localized tectonic shifting (back and forth)?

It has eroded into a somewhat rectangular shape over the 50,000 years
that it's spent sitting there in the desert...it's current shape is
probably due somewhat to stress fractures that exist either because
they were created in the underlying rock by tectonic movement or
possibly from the impact itself, so the angle of impact might have
something to do with the orientation of the 'sides,' but you're
dealing with advanced geology and physics there, in both of which I'm
something of a dilettante.

> Also, why is Tatahouine so green? Olivine? Krylon?

Diogenites like Tatahouine are composed primarily of granoblastic
orthopyroxines, and their colour is derived from this.  They all
started out as green crystals just like Tatahouine.

> I am looking at a slice of NWA 4664 right now (thank you Eric Olson) and I
> don't see any much green.  Maybe that one is a bad example because NWA 4664
> doesn't even look like at Diogenite!

Diogenites like Johnstown and Bilanga have a different colour because
although they started out looking like Tatahouine and the other, more
green, unbrecciated diogenites, the individual crystals have since
been shattered, creating a light coloured powder between the
still-green pieces of orthopyroxine.  If terrestrial weathering occurs
and there's any iron in the diogenite, it will turn yellow or possibly
even brown.

What ticks me off is when dealers try to pass off those small black
specks on tiny fragments of Tatahouine as fusion crust - they're not.
The little shiny black things are chromite crystalslearn that
already.

> Also, I have read that some meteoroids travel through space in streams and
> impact the Earth simultaneously (i.e., they have already broken up before
> they hit the Earth's atmosphere).  How can this be?  I would think that once
> a meteoroid has broken in space (most likely due to impact), minute
> deviations of the individual pieces in the initial trajectory would
> translate into ever increasing deviations in the individual piece's
> trajectory, over time.  Unless two pieces were traveling in EXACTLY parallel
> lines, over time the pieces would be widely dispersed in space.

If two large asteroids collide in space, what's to say that a number
of fragments won't go in a similar direction?  It might be rather
unlikely, but why do you consider it impossible for there to be
'streams?'  I admit that the concept is probably ill-named, but we
aren't necessarily talking about small swarms or trains of meteorites
going along - the concept is used to generally describe fragments of
the same asteroid that wind up in similar orbits around the sun that
we might come across coming from the same general direction at a
similar velocity, etc, possibly years apart from each other.

(Skipping a paragraph in here because it's already been addressed.)

> Traveling over eons to make it to the inner solar system, how can a
> meteoroid stream stay intact enough to cause a tiny strewnfield on the
> Earth? I would not think that the Earth's gravitational field would be
> strong enough to do what Jupiter did.

That's the point - they don't stay together - a similar orbit is all
we're talking about...

> Also, I know I have asked this before but I still don't understand how
> researchers can determine cosmic ray exposure ages for a meteorite which
> ablated a significant portion of the material that absorbed most of the
> cosmic rays and which may have fragmented in flight through the Earth's
> atmosphere.

I've heard 'Ne' as well, as well as Krypton...I don't know the
procedure on that, but surely there's a scientific mind on here who
could shed some light on the subject without having to do the
sleuthing that I would to find it...

With regard to the colour of olivines in Pallasites...
Unweathered pallasites will generally have green-to-black olivines,
depending on the trace elements within them, but other silicates
within irons can be mistaken for olivines like the silicates in IIE
irons, etc - these can range all the way to red, which seems only
logical when one takes into account that small spinel crystals have
been found in that group of meteorites, as well as in others.
The yellower or more red the olivines in a typical pallasite are, the
more weathered the pallasite is, in general.  Some weathered olivines
seem to hold their colour well, but in general, the older the
pallasite is, the more fractured and rust-stained the olivines within
become.
It's hard to single a single pallasite out for having such stained
crystals, as most have more-and-less weathered sections (I've seen
green-to-red Albin, Brahin, Brenham,  Eagle Station, Ahumada, Admire,
Pallasovka, etc).  The only pallasites with crystals of a reliable
colour ar

Re: [meteorite-list] Family Claims Meteorite FellInTheirCourtyardinIndia

[Jason Utas]

And speaking as an American, when half of this country not only
believe in god, but actually believe that the earth was created
between four and eight thousand years ago by their deity, that the
biblical flood truly happened, and that judgement day is approaching,
I think you, Chris, have great insight into the cultural and
superstition-related oddities or India and Russia.  Even having been
taught how radioisotopic dating works, a goodly portion of the
fundamentalists that I've talked to here still believe the earth to be
a mere few thousand years old, and I believe that the general excuse
for how fossils exist is that they're everything that was living
before the flood and much of the sediment on earth became churned up
at the time by currents, giving us the distribution of fossils that we
see in the ground today.
If you want an all-American explanation for how meteorites have come
to exist, look no farther than this link:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html

and

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html

- or maybe here, with regard to how the Grand Canyon came into being:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon2.html

Russia and India?  Sorry, Chris, but with our country being one of the
only technologically and financially advanced countries to still
debate whether or not abortion should be legal (just about every other
wealthy western country agrees that it's a woman's right to choose),
not to mention the fact that our chief executive doesn't believe he's
in charge, because he "only take[s] orders from a higher power."

How about a nice, rational, quote from our president, eh?


"I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it,
but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to
happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me
to do it."
--George W. Bush commenting to Texas evangelist James Robinson in the
run-up to his presidential campaign


I'll leave off with this wonderful quote by one of our country's
finest representatives.


"Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The
degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the
corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic)
can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the
disenfranchisement of White men."
--State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North
Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer,
08-22-01

Right.  Need I say more?

We're just as backwards and superstitious as the next country, and
don't you forget it ;)

Jason



On 8/9/07, mark ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> half the population believes the earth is less than 1 years old
>
> ... Well here in Britain, half the population don't even care how old
> the earth is at all, let alone believe an actual date!! Lol :)
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 09 August 2007 16:35
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Family Claims Meteorite
> FellInTheirCourtyardinIndia
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> " I think there are certain countries that are much more
> likely to embrace bad science or pseudoscience (India and Russia come
> immediately to mind)."
>
> You mean like countries where creationist theme parks attract the crowds
> and where nearly half the population believes the earth is less than
> 1 years old?
>
> I say there is no reason to look down on India or Russia in this regard.
>
> Svend
>
> --
> www.niger-meteorite-recon.de
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] the ugly weathered chondrite AD? DISGUISED?

[Jason Utas]

Hello Bill, All,
My post was not truly to defned him; I believe that there can be no
good excuse for the way that he uses the list.  I do, however, believe
that, regardless of what is written by anyone to this list, that
responses such as those written by a number of list members should not
be condoned for any reason.  If someone has a problem with a
listmember, it is their duty to take it off-list if possible, and
contact Art if all else fails.  I don't want to hear about how or why
you hate Steve, and furthermore, merely saying that you hate him is a
violation of list policy, worse than what he doesn, because what he
says usually doesn't break one of the 'Eight Golden Rules,' or
whatever you want to call them.

I'll now go through the posts that you sent in your last message, for
your benefit, if not everyone else's.

>>>
[Bill]
I'm not sure why you made this post defending him and I don't have
time to address it point by point. Let's just have a look at rule 1. I
spent maybe 15 minutes finding these. There are dozens if not hundreds
more violations of rule one by SSteve. We've all done it but not to
this endless mindnumbing extent.


1) Posts need to relate -in some way- to meteorites

--


Steve Arnold, Chicago!!!
Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:07:02 -0800

Hi and good afternoon list.I just want to let everyone know that I   just
got my new computer and will be putting my tucson pictures up on my
website for viewing.I'll let you know when I am done.I got a DELL
DIMENSION 3000.It is state of the art computer.

steve arnold.chicago


-Steve is clearly stating that he will get his Tucson pictures up
soon.  This message is to notify people that there will be pictures (I
assume related to meteorites, as that tends to be why
meteorite-enthusiasts go to Tucson) on his website in some
semi-ambiguous amount of time.  Meteorite related, in some way.  Next.



Steve Arnold, Chicago!!
Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:22:59 -0700

Hello list.I was just informed that someone very famous in the meteorite
world is turning 50 on july 3rd.He is whom every calls,THE MAN!Yes thats
right!BOB HAAG ,the Meteorite Man is turning the big 50.I want to
personally say happy birthday from the guy I bought my first meteorite
from.A 96 gram sikote-alin.Which I still have.Again happy b-day bob.


steve arnold,chicago

-> Bob Haag.  Meteorite-Man.  Sikhote-Alin.  Somehow related to
meteorites...next.



Steve Arnold, Chicago!!!
Tue, 09 Sep 2003 07:45:38 -0700

11 months from now the BIG  50  for me.But I feel like 25 thank you so
much.And happy birthday dave from chicago.

 steve

-> Context please?  He -is- wishing a list member happy 50th
birthday..hardly a true list violation if you ask me, considering all
of the well wishing that goes on around here, from many list-members
to many more list-members.  No double standards, please.


Steve Arnold, Chicago!!!
Fri, 27 May 2005 03:38:45 -0700

Hi and good morning to the list.I just want to thank the people who
continue to support me, despite all the NAYSAYERS out there who continue
to harrass me for no reason except to BITCH about nothing.If I post
something about any of my adds, 20 more will come and harrass me.Thinking
that they are "HURTING" me.But you are not!You are only hurting yourselves
making you all look like ASS'S.And to put it in perspective,like mike
blood said, YOU HAVE A DELETE KEY.I have blocked some 20 emails from
people who have harrassed me for no reason.And like mark said, everything
else has been meteorite related.Tonight I am taking out my lovely wife to
dinner, it is her birthday to day.So after a 9 hour day,I am going to
enjoy a 3 day weekend and enjoy myself.1 week till mazatlan,mexico.Again
thanks to all who support me.


  steve

-> You attack him with posts that clearly violate list policies 1 and
2 and he's not entitled to a response?  I admit, it would be better
for him to take it off-list, but if you don't, I don't see how you can
hold it against him when he doesn't.



Steve Arnold, Chicago!!!
Fri, 06 Aug 2004 15:09:45 -0700

Hello all.I just want to thank everyone who wished me a happy birthday and
good tidings.I, my brother  and my nephew went down to the field museum to
see the meteorites down there.What a killer piece of WILAMETTE iron
slice.Also ALLENDE,BRENHAM,HAMLET, and many kansas pieces.It is just an
absolutly beautiful day here in the windy city.The home of the PARK FOREST
meteorite fall.It was 75 degree's and sunny.We also visit the new
MILLENIUM PARK that just opened.I took some great pictures.(I hear I might
be getting a new digital camera)Yeah!!!Oh well I had a great
time, and tomorrow is the KILLER party.It is up to 60 people now.Oh
well.It is the best party/birthday I have ever had.Who says it sucks
getting older?I am just getting bet

Re: [meteorite-list] From the Admin - update on List Policies

[Jason Utas]

And if you have a problem with someone breaking the list rules, you
contact Art, not the other 600 of us out here.
Otherwise you're just being a hypocrite.
Thank you,
Jason

On 8/5/07, Martin Altmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you very much.
> Martin
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von ken
> newton
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. August 2007 19:11
> An: Meteorite Mailing List
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] From the Admin - update on List Policies
>
> All,
> This was the last policies update, please note #7.
>
> Art, please remove Steve and his daily, unadvertised
> self promotions. The List was peaceful (and respectful) while he
> was in Mexico.
> Respectfully,
> Ken Newton
>
> Art wrote:
>
> >Good Evening;
> >
> >Here are the latest updates of the List policies (note # 7 regarding
> >frequency of advertisement posts) :
> >
> >1. All posts should be related to meteorites in some way.
> >2. All posts should be courteous and professional (profanity will
> >result in removal).
> >3. Do NOT post private messages or personal attacks to the list.
> >4. Include a relevant -subject- in the subject field of the email on all
> posts.
> >5. Do NOT send HTML or Rich Text formatted emails; only TEXT will be
> posted.
> >6. Do NOT send emails with files attached (include a web link to the file).
>
> >7. Advertisement posts should be limited to once a week - per member.
> >8. All Advertisement posts should have the word AD in the subject of the
> email.
> >
> >Your support of these policies will lead to the continued success of
> >this interesting and positive forum environment, thank you!
> >
> >Art Jones - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Meteorite Mailing List Admin
> >__
> >Meteorite-list mailing list
> >Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> >
> >
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] OFF TOPIC the ugly weathered chondrite AD? DISGUISED?

[Jason Utas]

 ...
>
> Well, if somebody empties out his garbage can every day in front of your
> door and you and your neighbours ask that person frequently not to do so,
> but despite he's promising to keep his trash in future, he continues...
>
> I'm perhaps to old-fashioned - but that behaviour I wouldn't call
> "courteous" and I have difficulties to find another interpretation...
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Jason
> Utas
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. August 2007 00:46
> An: Meteorite-list
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] the ugly weathered chondrite AD? DISGUISED?
>
> Hello Marcin, Dirk, Don, All,
>
> I, too, am fed up with these posts, but feel obliged to point out that
> the list policies (copied here from the meteoritecentral page) read as
> follow:
>
> General List Policies
>
> 1) Posts need to relate -in some way- to meteorites
> 2) Be courteous and professional at all times
> 3) Please include the 'subject' of the post in the subject box
> 4) Send emails in text format, not -HTML-
> 5) Do not send emails with -file attachments- to the list - include a file
> link
> 6) Make sure you can back up statements with -facts and references-
> 7) Do not post -major advertisement- emails to the list- include a 'sale'
> link
> 8) If you are posting a URL for a sale, include 'SALE' in the subject box
>
> To break these down
>
> 1) Posts need to relate -in some way- to meteorites
>
> - Steve has generally stuck to this rule.  There have been a few
> indiscretions, but I recall a number of list members posting
> completely unrelated things such as, well,  vacation pictures and
> pottery made by their children, not to mention other things...don't
> hold double standards.
>
> 2) Be courteous and professional at all times
>
> - Open to interpretation.  I would not call Steve's posts
> professional, but then again, there are far less-professional people
> on the list who I will not name.  I would like to note that the people
> who publicly attack his posts, in my opinion, fall into this category.
>
> 3) Please include the 'subject' of the post in the subject box
>
> - Steve generally sticks to this - I know you guys and gals get all
> riled up about the "AD" bit in the subject line, but that's later.
>
> 4) Send emails in text format, not -HTML-
>
> - Is this really a problem?  Posts get delayed if sent in this format,
> but I don't know if it makes Art do more work...better just follow it,
> which I think Steve does.
>
> 5) Do not send emails with -file attachments- to the list - include a file
> link
>
> - A number of people have been sending attachments lately.  This does
> not include Steve.
>
> 6) Make sure you can back up statements with -facts and references-
>
> - Hmmm...I'm going to have to say that Matteo rather annoyed me with
> his post that stated that I, as a meteorite hunter here in California,
> take NWA's and seed the desert here with them.  But that's neither
> here nor there...Steve hasn't done this, as far as I know.  Yes, he
> said he wouldn't post to the list as much, but it's not a list policy
> 'not to lie' - I know for a fact that people do it on here all the
> time, and in fact, the majority of the lying on-list is probably done
> by a few of the dealers held in the very highest regard.  Again,
> neither here nor there...at least Steve's intentions don't appear to
> be blatantly malevolent, as do some of the other posts that I see on
> here, with nine years of background knowledge behind them...
>
> 7) Do not post -major advertisement- emails to the list- include a 'sale'
> link
>
> - Hasn't been a problem with Steve.
>
> 8) If you are posting a URL for a sale, include 'SALE' in the subject box
>
> - Well, this is different, isn't it.  I guess there is a sort of an
> "AD" rule, but most list members break it by not posting "SALE" in the
> subject line.  Most of you put "AD" in there instead.  Neither of you
> (very general plural 'you') follow the letter of the law.
>
>
> Ok, ok, I know - this must be very annoying, my saying this, but I
> think you should think about this for a minute.
>
>
> There are a good number of you who hate Steve.  This is commonly known.
> You detest all of his posts: sales, giveaways, requests, exclamations
> of a specimen arriving, whatever they may be, you just complain and
> seem to get pretty generally riled-up.
>
> Why do you still read them?  I st

Re: [meteorite-list] [OFFTOPIC] the ugly weathered chondrite AD? DISGUISED?

[Jason Utas]

Bleh, sorry for that - I use the meteoritetimes site much more than
meteoritecentral and it slipped - makes sense to me really, as when I
saw the list page, the hit-counter said that it had been viewed a
total of eight times.
Toe me it looks like the nay-sayers have really taken their time to
brush on on their list-policy...
Jason

On 8/4/07, Mal Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Mike -- Yes, I think most of us know that, but Jason linked to
> www.meteoritetimes.com  instead of  www.meteoritecentral.com  when he
> was making reference to the 8 rules guide line.
>
> Regardless though, the link to www.meteoritetimes.com  is incorrect, and does
> go to a gambling related site.
>
>
>
> At 06:58 PM 8/4/2007 -0700, Michael Farmer wrote:
> >I hate to tell you this, but www.meteoritetimes.com
> >has nothing to do with this list, this is the
> >www.meteoritecentral.com list.
> >if you go to www.meteoritecentral.com then you can
> >find the rules for this list. That might help a
> >little.
> >Michael Farmer
> >--- Mal Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Your right, Charlie, it is linked to that site --
> > > and it finally proves to
> > > me once and for all beyond a doubt, being a member
> > > of this group is like a crap shot. :-)
> > >
> > > Mal
> > >
> > > At 09:21 PM 8/4/2007 -0400, you wrote:
> > > >I don't know about anyone else, but when I click on
> > > >www.meteoritetimes.com to check the list rules, I
> > > get taken to
> > > >Bettingways: Your Online Gambling Guide:-(.  Now
> > > THATS spam
> > > >Charlie
> > > >
> > > >__
> > > >Meteorite-list mailing list
> > > >Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > >
> > >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __
> > > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> > >
> >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> > >
>
>
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] [OFFTOPIC] the ugly weathered chondrite AD? DISGUISED?

[Jason Utas]

Marcin, All,
I thought that everyone had to agree to a gentleman's agreement for it
to work...for that matter, you seem to imply that we kick people off
of the list for breaking 'gentleman's agreements.'
The eight rules that I mentioned are the only rules that matter with
regard to booting people off of the list.  They are the official rules
of the list, as seen on www.meteoritetimes.com
Anything else, although a nice idea, isn't a binding agreement that
can result in the expulsion of a person from the list, as far as I
know (unless they do something that Art sees as particularly insulting
or unjust or some such thing).  In any case, take it off the list and
to Art.  If it is a problem, he'll deal with it.  I don't particularly
care to hear about this anymore.
Jason


On 8/4/07, PolandMET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You missed one point Jason.
> Something that was like "gentlemen agreement" -> one AD per week. OK, maybe
> 2 in case if You have really something special to advertise. Steve broke
> this frequently.
> Last time I have advertised 6 new meteorites at once. So fallowing Steve
> practices next classifications I can advertise one meteorite per day + 2
> emails per day with Ohhh and Ahhh on every chondrule I will find on my
> slices. This will be meteorite related emails but I will not do that even if
> this is not broke any of  8 rules You mention.
>
> All this spam we produced (again) is alvays about Steve. So dont say that we
> are spammers becouse we send 3 or 4 or now 5 spam emails in answer to his
> "one AD". If his practices will be right, noone will say a word, the same as
> noone have pretensions that Mike, Greg, Martin, or Marcin AD's disturbing
> anyone ot that they are spam's.
>
> -[ MARCIN CIMALA ]-[ I.M.C.A.#3667 ]-
> http://www.Meteoryt.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.PolandMET.com   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.Gao-Guenie.com  GSM +48(607)535 195
> [ Member of Polish Meteoritical Society ]
>
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] the ugly weathered chondrite AD? DISGUISED?

[Jason Utas]

Hello Marcin, Dirk, Don, All,

I, too, am fed up with these posts, but feel obliged to point out that
the list policies (copied here from the meteoritecentral page) read as
follow:

General List Policies

1) Posts need to relate -in some way- to meteorites
2) Be courteous and professional at all times
3) Please include the 'subject' of the post in the subject box
4) Send emails in text format, not -HTML-
5) Do not send emails with -file attachments- to the list - include a file link
6) Make sure you can back up statements with -facts and references-
7) Do not post -major advertisement- emails to the list- include a 'sale' link
8) If you are posting a URL for a sale, include 'SALE' in the subject box

To break these down

1) Posts need to relate -in some way- to meteorites

- Steve has generally stuck to this rule.  There have been a few
indiscretions, but I recall a number of list members posting
completely unrelated things such as, well,  vacation pictures and
pottery made by their children, not to mention other things...don't
hold double standards.

2) Be courteous and professional at all times

- Open to interpretation.  I would not call Steve's posts
professional, but then again, there are far less-professional people
on the list who I will not name.  I would like to note that the people
who publicly attack his posts, in my opinion, fall into this category.

3) Please include the 'subject' of the post in the subject box

- Steve generally sticks to this - I know you guys and gals get all
riled up about the "AD" bit in the subject line, but that's later.

4) Send emails in text format, not -HTML-

- Is this really a problem?  Posts get delayed if sent in this format,
but I don't know if it makes Art do more work...better just follow it,
which I think Steve does.

5) Do not send emails with -file attachments- to the list - include a file link

- A number of people have been sending attachments lately.  This does
not include Steve.

6) Make sure you can back up statements with -facts and references-

- Hmmm...I'm going to have to say that Matteo rather annoyed me with
his post that stated that I, as a meteorite hunter here in California,
take NWA's and seed the desert here with them.  But that's neither
here nor there...Steve hasn't done this, as far as I know.  Yes, he
said he wouldn't post to the list as much, but it's not a list policy
'not to lie' - I know for a fact that people do it on here all the
time, and in fact, the majority of the lying on-list is probably done
by a few of the dealers held in the very highest regard.  Again,
neither here nor there...at least Steve's intentions don't appear to
be blatantly malevolent, as do some of the other posts that I see on
here, with nine years of background knowledge behind them...

7) Do not post -major advertisement- emails to the list- include a 'sale' link

- Hasn't been a problem with Steve.

8) If you are posting a URL for a sale, include 'SALE' in the subject box

- Well, this is different, isn't it.  I guess there is a sort of an
"AD" rule, but most list members break it by not posting "SALE" in the
subject line.  Most of you put "AD" in there instead.  Neither of you
(very general plural 'you') follow the letter of the law.


Ok, ok, I know - this must be very annoying, my saying this, but I
think you should think about this for a minute.


There are a good number of you who hate Steve.  This is commonly known.
You detest all of his posts: sales, giveaways, requests, exclamations
of a specimen arriving, whatever they may be, you just complain and
seem to get pretty generally riled-up.

Why do you still read them?  I stopped long ago, when they started to
get annoying.

You guys make it sound as though you opened his last post expecting to
find some gem of great intellectual or scientific importance, and upon
opening it, found an add.

Are you that stupid?

I'm really quite sorry, but if you are, I think it should be you
leaving the list and not him.
It's called a delete-button.  If your email doesn't have one of them,
I'll give you double whatever you pay per month for your email service
to switch to a free email that does have one of those nifty little
things.

So...
It's not more than an hour or so after Steve has made his initial post
and there are no fewer than three (3) angry (well, it's really 2 angry
and one more reasonable)  responses, one of which contains an
expletive aimed at Steve.
(That's really quite professional of you, Don, see list policy number
2, which you just, in my opinion, broke.)
I'd have to say thank you for proving my point.  I have four spam
messages where I would only have had one.  Thank you, all of you.
Your posts, I'm sure, are going to get Steve to stop his posts
forever.

And if you have something to say to Art, I daresay this fellow -



mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



( ^ this is Art's ~supersecret~ email address, just as I foun

[meteorite-list] NASA 'Sabotage'

[Jason Utas]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/orl-bk-nasacomputer072607,0,2959788.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines
-

From Orlando Sentinel

NASA reports sabotage of computer by worker who cut wires
Marcia Dunn
The Associated Press

July 26, 2007, 4:51 PM EDT

CAPE CANAVERAL -- A space program worker deliberately damaged a
computer that is supposed to fly aboard shuttle Endeavour in less than
two weeks, an act of sabotage that was caught before the equipment was
loaded onto the spaceship, NASA said today.

The unidentified employee, who works for a NASA subcontractor, cut
wires inside the computer that is supposed to be delivered to the
international space station by Endeavour, said Bill Gerstenmaier,
NASA's space operations chief. The worker also damaged a similar
computer that was not meant to fly to space.

The sabotage occurred outside Florida. Gerstenmaier did not identify
the subcontractor or where the damage took place.

NASA's inspector general office is investigating.

NASA hopes to fix the computer and launch it Aug. 7 as planned aboard
Endeavour. The computer is designed for use aboard the space station,
not the shuttle, and the damage would have posed no danger to either
shuttle or station astronauts, Gerstenmaier said.

-
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Rocks From Space Picture of the Day - June 30, 2007

[Jason Utas]

Hello Matteo, All,
Really, an L6 with such a small-diameter average chondrule-size?
That would be interesting...if it were an L, it should have large
chondrules, even if they do appear to be washed-out due to
metamorphism.
Perhaps you can see more in person than I can through your camera.
Regards,
Jason

On 6/30/07, M come Meteorite Meteorites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


- Original Message -
Da : "Jason Utas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A : Meteorite-list 
Oggetto : Re: [meteorite-list] Rocks From Space Picture of
the Day - June 30, 2007
Data : Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:21:53 -0700

. I am wondering - Matteo,
> what's that picture you sent - it's clearly not a CR, and
> looks more like a CO3, unless it's just an equilibrated
> H...I can't tell from such low resolution. Regards,
> Jason


it is a ordinary chondrite not analyzed, probably L6

Matteo



__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Rocks From Space Picture of the Day - June 30, 2007

[Jason Utas]

Hello All,
This is simply a piece of NWA 4759, to steal Carsten's NWA number.
But,  whereas he lists the TKW at seven hundred or so grams, there are
really *at least* 10kg of material.  The main mass (at least the
largest stone that I saw) was about as big as my head.  The rest of
the stones that Mohammed had in Tucson were all together in a big
burlap sack; I picked one out with a centimeter+ CAI sticking out of
one side.
It tends to be a greenish-grey, nicely sand-polished on the outside
surface, with many light-coloured chondrules visible externally (not
red or orange, as the interior, but white - unless you're dealing with
a somewhat freshly broken surface; then the chondrules appear to be
reddish).  I bought mine as, well he was "100% sure" that it was, a CK
- shame, but that fellow lost a customer for next year.
In any case, it's beautiful material, and unpaired to the other NWA
CV3's out there (it takes a nice polish as well...unusual for a CV3).
It is, in my opinion, much prettier than any of the other NWA CV3's
available, though that CR2...nice stuff, that.
I am wondering - Matteo, what's that picture you sent - it's clearly
not a CR, and looks more like a CO3, unless it's just an equilibrated
H...I can't tell from such low resolution.
Regards,
Jason

On 6/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

http://www.spacerocksinc.com/June_30_2007.html




** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Rocks From Space Picture of the Day - June 11, 2007

[Jason Utas]

Don,
If you can't tell that the stone pictured is a meteorite (without any
doubt), you're an idiot.
Furthermore, do you truly believe it necessary to cut stones such as
this, that display beautiful fusion crust and a broken window into the
interior that undoubtedly reveals a common chondritic composition?
In my opinion, doing so would simply be pointless - unless one wanted
to cut off the broken bit to create a nice windowed stone, why cut it
at all.  The classification would undoubtedly reveal it to be a common
chondrite, and we all know how many of those there are coming out of
NWA...aesthetics in this case are quite a bit more important than
whatever minuscule science could be gleaned from the H5 or L6 that it
most likely is.
Jason

Ohn 6/11/07, Don Rawlings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Is an unclassified "meteorite" really a meteorite without scientific
verification?  Or is it just a "probable meteorite"?

Don.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 6/11/2007 8:41:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Good Lord.. another unclassifed meteorite as Picture of the day?
Yawn.

There should be a rule. No unclassifieds as Picture of the day.

Don



Sorry you're disappointed Don but you know you don't have to view them if
you choose not to!

I post what collectors send me and if they want to share with others rather
classified or not I see nothing wrong with it.


Sincerely,
Michael Johnson





** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.



Don Rawlings


Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.


__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list



__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically proven or a farce

[Jason Utas]

Hello All,

It doesn't matter why the Earth is warming.  The fact of the matter is
that people are dying of starvation thanks to the warming (yes, Rob,
it's happening - recheck your data because it's clearly completely
wrong, as far as global trends are concerned), and scientific fact
tells us that CO2, even if it isn't the direct cause of the warming
(but which it most likely is, based on what I learned in both physics
and AP chemistry classes - unless CO2 somehow defies the laws of
physics, it does contribute to warming, especially in the amounts that
human industry have released), it still accelerates the change and/or
makes it greater, harming innocent people without even the most basic
resources all the more.

Yes climate might be akin to change, but that doesn't mean that we as
humans shouldn't try to lessen the impact that such 'detrimental'
changes have on our less fortunate brethren.

What it comes down to is your attitude towards life in general.  'It's
not my fault, so why does it matter,' is one...another is that,
'people are suffering, so something should be done.'

Whichever one you pick is, of course,  entirely up to you.

Just...turn the lights off when you leave the room, please.

Jason


On 6/10/07, Sterling K. Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi, Rob, Michael, List

   Here we go again!

   "Global Warming - Scientifically Proven or A Farce?"
Bong, bong, bong! I'm sorry, the Correct Answer is...
Farce!

> the vast majority of scientists as expressed in the United
Nations 

   Wrong! Cap'n Blood is referring here to the IPCC -- the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a document produced
by beaurocrats, not scientists, of the UN. It lists 2500 of the
world's "leading" scientists as authors. In actual fact, NONE
of these scientists wrote ANY of the report, and the report
does not contain their scientific conclusions, evidence, etc.
The scientist named as "lead author" on the title page, John
Christie, has repeatedly repudiated the report and called it
"worthless." He's asked to have his name removed from it,
but the UN has just as repeatedly refused to do it.

   The IPCC Report contains a section on the "dire" biological
consequences of GW that contains such idiocies as the suggestion
that GW will "allow" malaria to spread from the tropics north and
south to areas now "safe" because mosquitoes "are not found where
temperatures fall below 18 deg. C." They should be staked out on
the banks of the Yukon River in summer so non-existent carnivorous
mosquitoes can devour them. The worst malaria epidemic in history
took place in Russia in 1922. The city of Archangel on the ARTIC
OCEAN had 30,000 cases and 11,000 deaths...

   Why didn't the UN consult an expert? Well, they did. They consulted
the WHO's and the world's leading expert on malaria, Paul Reiter of the
Pasteur Institute. I could give you paragraphs of his credentials, but this
post is going to be too long as it is. Google him. OK? They put his name
on this idiocy. He told them to take his name off. They said, no, you
contributed. He said, no, because you didn't listen to anything I said.
The UN refused to remove his name from their garbage. He sued the
UN in Belgium. They took his name off.

   You'll have to ask the beaurocrats at the UN why they wrote what
they did in the IPCC Report. If you ever get a straight answer, let me
know. But, whatever the reason, it wasn't the "science." I'm equally
sure they had a reason. Wonder what it was?

   Next, we have the incorrectly titled "An Inconvenient Truth." This
title was chosen because it sounds so much better than the accurate
one: "A Convenient Lie." Highlights of the presentation are the display
of the "Hockey Stick" graph of temperature rise, an artifact of faulty
computer programming on the part of the modeler. The mathematical
error that gave rise to it is acknowledged by every expert who's seen
the code except, of course, by the man who screwed up. You can take
his bad code and give it RANDOM temperature records and it will
still produce a sudden sharp curve of warming... Garbage processor.

   The highlight of Mister Gore's presentation is the giant graph of
world temperature and carbon dioxide levels which march up and
down in lockstep, together, in a perfect fit, taken from the ice core
data of 400,000 years. Man, that nails it! That's proof positive! Well,
he does mention that there are "some difficulties with the ice cores,"
but he never says what they are nor any word about them.

   The "difficulty" is this. The ice cores for 400,000 years show
that the rise in CO2 FOLLOWS the rise in temperature by 800 to
1000 years. FIRST, the temperature goes up, THEN CO2 goes up...
800 years later. Does CO2 cause warming? NO. Warming causes
CO2. The mechanism is easy to understand. CO2 solubility in water
is very temperature dependent. Leave your soda sitting out on a warm
day; it goes flat. When the planet warms, the ocean surface warms.
Warm water cannot hold much CO2; it r

Re: [meteorite-list] Suspect Seller?

[Jason Utas]

Hello Ken, Bill, Mark, All,

Ken's message just informed 600+ people that there was a fraudulent
seller on ebay.

Ben's post told 600+ people that *he* was fed up with reading other
peoples' posts about fraudulent sellers.

This is one of those cases where I would have to say that, without a
doubt, Ken had every right to post his message, and you had no right
to tell him off, Bill.
Even if you don't care to read posts about suspicious/fraudulent
sellers, posts such as Ken's obey all list rules, and perform a
service to novices who may be lurking on the list (or scanning list
archives on google), hoping to find information on what and what not
to buy.

If you don't like reading them, delete them, and if you get fed up
with a single person's posts, by all means, block them or filter out
there posts through selective email scanning (most email services have
this sort of feature) - but don't post personal attacks to the list
like you just did, because posts such as that are actually in direct
violation of list policies.

All talk must be meteorite-related and non-combative, at least with
regard to pointed statements such as "Are you bored to death?"

It's simply uncalled for.  If you don't like posts such as this, and
feel a need to respond, please do so privately (and, I hope, politely
in the future).

Bill, the person you mentioned in your message, Matteo, came onto the
list while I was here and has come and gone a few times since then.
He was blocked a few times for posting private messages to the list
and using...inappropriate language.
People may have gotten onto his case for posting ebay warnings, but I
believe that they actually did so because of his warnings pertaining
to the classic 'Nigerian scam' postings that everyone seems to get
(They're so easy to recognize in general, that people get annoyed when
warned of such things.)
...That, and he's an easy target - people on this list seem to get
into a frenzy when someone who's not too eloquent or perhaps not a
native English speaker comes on and posts...it's sad, but even  true
meteorite enthusiasts with good intentions get beaten up on here; it's
just a fact that hasn't changed in, well, the nine years I've been on
here.

Sorry this goes out to the list, but I do think it has something to do
with list policy in general - perhaps attacks could become a little
less...prolific.

Regards,
Jason



On 5/15/07, Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hi Mark,

This list is for everyone. I don't comment all that often. When I do it's
for a good reason. Ken knows what I'm getting at. All the points you made
are accurate. I think the mix of personalities here makes for an interesting
forum. I hope I didn't offend you but if I did, change things.

Incapable of grandstanding,

Bill




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 15 May 2007 22:37:48 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Suspect Seller?


Hey Bill,

What is it with some of the people on this distribution?  According to the
met-list About, this is...

"...with over 600 members, the best place to get information on rocks from
space!"

I'm old on astronomy, and newish on meteorites.  I joined thinking I'd "get
information on rocks from space".  As for Ken's post (I don't know the man)
- it's useful to get a feel for the kind of scams that are around.  I'm not
stupid, but I can be misled.

What's the primary purpose of this group, nowadays, in reality?  Is it for
dealers?  Mainly dealers, with collector/lurkers hoping to get an inside
tip?  Or just a place for the Old Boys to ignore or beat up the new guys?
As a new member, I can honestly say that it's certainly not an open and
welcoming community.  Most hobbies try to encourage beginners - proponents
want to share their knowledge, wonder and passion about their interests.
This kind of BS can only serve to put people off the whole hobby.

So I guess I'll be flamed for this - off-list is fine, but I suppose there's
more grandstanding to be done by posting on-list. :-\

Mark

Bill wrote:
Hi Ken,


Are you bored to death? I am. A lot of list members have been

reamed out for posting these ebay warnings. Matteo comes to mind.


Please

stop. If we want your opinion we'll join the imca and view it on your
invaluable website/s


Bill




Get Free 5GB Online Storage - Safely store your documents, photos and music
online!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/storage to find out more!
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list



__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] [meteorite_sale] Iron Meteorite for sale

[Jason Utas]

Hello Bob, Lists,
Beware of a seller calling himself Bob Frankline, who is attempting to
pass off a Chinga (currently on the Labenne webside, weight 499g) as a
Mauritanian/NWA iron of any weight (he stated that it weighed 1091g).

I did some sleuthing; the picture that was sent to me sure looked like
a Chinga, so I searched for Chinga meteorites on google and the third
hit was, well, it showed me the very same picture that I'd been sent
of his "1091g Mauritanian meteorite."

See here for the picture that he sent to me:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/JUtas/wals.jpg

and here for the Labennes' site and the identical image:

http://www.meteorites.tv/index.html?lang=en-us&target=d428.html

The seller stated that it had been "analysed in polytechnique de Vincent
Bordeaux,in France when [he] was on transit to Cameroon from Mauritania."
I tend to be trusting with such things, but this was an odd story, so
I asked for more pictures/information, etc.

He said that he would prefer to leave it uncut, but that it had aready
been analysed with the following results:

Chemically it contains 26.7%Ni,76%martensite and 24%taesite,0.072ppm Ge
0.177ppm Ga and finally it is 11.7ppm Ir.

Load of crap, as you can see, both the data and the fact that it was
analysed without being cut.

So...beware of a 'Bob Frankline' or old material being passed off as a
'new NWA iron.'  If the story's suspicious, or the irons doesn't look
like a desert iron, just me mindful...

Regards,
Jason


On 5/2/07, frankline bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:

Hello Janson,
I would not want to temper with this whole fragment.
I want to sell it in it's natural form.
This meteorite was analysed in polytechnique de Vincent
Bordeaux,in France when i was on transit to Cameroon from Mauritania.
Thanks.
Frankline.



On 5/1/07, Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> Hello Again Bob,
> Could you please send a picture of the cut surface?  Doesn't have to show the 
micro-etch - I know that would be hard to capture, but just something to give a 
rough idea.
> Also, could you please send a little more on the history - such as where you 
had it analysed, etc?
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>
>
> On 5/1/07, frankline bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > Hello Janson,
> > See picture attached.
> > Structurally it's microsrstucture is plessite-like,It
> >  lacks the troilite crystals and very smooth.
> > It is highly attracted to a magnet also.
> > Chemically it contains 26.7%Ni,76%martensite and 24%taesite,0.072ppm Ge
> > 0.177ppm Ga and finally it is 11.7ppm Ir.
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > On 4/30/07, Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Bob,
> > > Pictures would be much appreciated - do you have any more information on 
it as well?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/24/07, bob_frank2005 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I'm Bob Frankline an American resident presently on a volunteer mission
> > > > at the Shisong Catholic Hospital(NW) of Cameroon.I have an iron
> > > > (ataxite) meteorite,very rich in Nikel(Ni) and weighs 1091gms.It was
> > > > found in 1997 in Mauritania and i happened to have bought it while i
> > > > was in that Country.It is very nice looking.I'm offering it at a
> > > > reasonable price of $800.If you're interested please do get contact
> > > > with me.contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for photo.
> > > > Thanks Frankline
> > > >
> > > > __._,_.___
> > > > Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
> > > > Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Calendar
> > > > From list manager:
> > > > Ebay auctions may be advertised only if offering within the posting
> > > > a discount of at least 5% of total.
> > > > This list is not for "regular" dealer postings, therefore
> > > > dealer postings may be subject to moderation which will delayed them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
> > > > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch 
format to Traditional
> > > > Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Recent Activity
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  1
> > > > New MembersVisit Your Group
> > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Posting
> > > > Meteorite
> > > > Job postings
> > > > Load posting
> > > > Newsgroup posting
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Top Scientist
> > > >
> > > > 10 Greatest Ever
> > > >
> > > > Share and vote
> > > >
> > > > on Bix.com!
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! News
> > > >
> > > > Celebrity News
> > > >
> > > > Get the latest
> > > >
> > > > gossip/news
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! TV
> > > >
> > > > Get American Idol
> > > >
> > > > recaps, pics and
> > > >
> > > > much more!
> > > > .
> > > > __,_._,___
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>



__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Cool California Find

[Jason Utas]

Hello All,
Usually I don't post find images, but I thought this one from the day
before yesterday was pretty cool.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/JUtas/DSCN2320.jpg

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/JUtas/DSCN2315.jpg

It's the smallest stone we've ever found, weighing in at ~.5-.6g (our
scale can't decide which, and we don't have a good enough one to
tell).
Gotta love hunting...
Regards,
Jason
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Tennessee fall picture on postcard on ebay.

[Jason Utas]

Hello Sterling, Robert, All,
Sterling's right, but to clarify a little; it's a fairly common
postcard showing the excavation of the second largest Brenham mass
(formerly the largest...).  I've seen countless cards like this
around...it's one of the two common Brenham cards, and there's most
likely at least one more on ebay listed right now with the correct
location of the find in the description.
Regards,
Jason


On 3/28/07, Sterling K. Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The seller's mistake. It's a postcard of the
> famous Greensburg KANSAS Pallasite:
> http://www.bigwell.org/meteor.html
>
> The photo on the page indicated above
> has the same individual pictured on the
> postcard in the recovery effort.
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> ---
> - Original Message -
> From: Robin Galyan
> To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:41 AM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Tennessee fall picture on postcard on ebay.
>
>
> on ebay is a postcard showing excavation of a supposed 1000lb meteorite in
> TN.   appears possibly 1930's-1940s cant tell for sure.
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Old-Postcard-of-1000-Pound-Meteorite-Found-in-Tenn_W0QQitemZ120099552758QQcategoryZ20236QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>
> But in the usgs met database I dont find any from Greensburg where it was
> supposedly found.The database in fact for TN only has one real large
> puppy,   the Cosby's Creek find from 1837.   Two big chunks,  one 907KG
> (first) one 50.8 (found later).
>
> So in tracking these two,   I find some at the TCU (m104.4) collection and
> some at the Nat. Museum of History.
>
> So...   does anyone have any further information on what might be called the
> Greensburg fall,  or on the cosby's creek fall?
>
> Thanks.
> Robin
> Knoxville, TN
>
>
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

[meteorite-list] Chait Natural History Auction Recap

[Jason Utas]

-With quotes from meteorite dealers Anders Karlsson and Darryl Pitt.
...It's not every day meteorite enthusiasts get onto 'AOL's top news...'

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/and-to-the-winner-goes-the-dinosaur/20070326094009990001?ncid=NWS000101

Updated:2007-03-26 15:55:30
And to the Winner Goes the Dinosaur Skull
By ROJA HEYDARPOUR
The New York Times
(March 26) -- The dinosaur skull was advertised as "perfect for a New
York City apartment," though with a starting bid of $100,000, it was
clear that the apartment in question was not, say, a studio in a
walk-up.


Some scientists worry that the high prices artifacts fetch at auction
lead to frenzied excavations and the loss of scientific information.


What the I. M. Chait Gallery billed as its "natural history" auction
-- held yesterday at a rented showroom on Fifth Avenue at 29th Street,
as well as by telephone and on eBay -- was a child's dream, a wealthy
person's playground and a curator's nightmare.

The showroom resembled miniature versions of the rooms at the American
Museum of Natural History. Fossils were displayed all around, and
meteorites lined the shelves. Nearly all 345 items up for bid were
available to touch.

They included an Egyptian mummy's hand; lion, hyena and warthog
skulls; a gold nugget weighing 62 troy ounces; and (behind glass, but
touchable on request) crystals, minerals and a meteorite from Mars.

The prize skull, from a Tyrannosaurus bataar, a close relative of the
T. rex, sat in the center of the room, with no barriers around it. It
went for a bid of $276,000 phoned in by a private collector on the
West Coast whom the gallery would not identify.

The skull, estimated to be about 67 million years old, is 32 inches
long and 65 percent complete, with the rest of it, including the lower
right jaw and the back of the skull, having been restored with casts,
said David Herskowitz, the director of the gallery's natural history
department.

He obtained the specimen last summer, he said, after a collector in
Florida contacted him and said that he had acquired it from a Japanese
collector who had been storing the skull -- which was still embedded
in rock, or the matrix -- in a box since the early 1960s.

Paleontologists around the country have watched in pain in recent
years as fossils, skeleton parts and other prized artifacts have gone
on the block. In December, Christie's auctioned an Egyptian wooden
sarcophagus with a male mummy inside to a private American collector
for $1.1 million. In 1997, the Field Museum in Chicago paid $8.36
million at auction for a Tyrannosaurus rex, which had been named Sue,
that had about 85 percent of its bones largely intact.


Some scientists worry that such prices lead to frenzied excavations
and, as a result, the loss of valuable scientific information. Kevin
Padian, a paleontologist at University of California, Berkeley, said
that private collectors recover the fossils but miss pieces of the
puzzle that paleontologists cherish, like the circumstances of the
environment, the way the fossil was entombed, and remnants of any soft
tissue in vertebrate fossils. "We're losing science, we're losing
education, we're losing valuable specimens," he said.

But private collectors argue that without the profit incentive,
interesting specimens would continue to decay in the earth as seasons
change, perhaps never to be exhumed.

"If the American commercial paleontologist isn't looking for this
stuff, it won't be found," said Darryl Pitt, 51, of New York, the
owner of one of the world's largest meteorite collections. "It has
sent Bedouins and Berbers searching the desert."

For more than a century, mummies and other artifacts have been taken
out of Egypt, sometimes with its government's permission, sometimes
without. In recent years, Egypt has pressed foreign museums to return
some important items.

The Egyptian mummy's hand was expected to go to the Ripley's Believe
It or Not! organization, but it lost to Anders Karlsson, a gallery
owner in Santa Monica, Calif. Mr. Karlsson, who paid $4,500, said that
he would not put the hand up for sale, that it was going to become a
family heirloom.

"Hopefully," he said, "it doesn't have any bad seeds attached to it."

It was the only item in the auction not available on eBay because the
Web site has limitations on the sale of body parts.

The hand was traced to an antique dealer in New Jersey who got it from
the British Museum. A New York collector then acquired it in the
1960s, said Mr. Herskowitz, the Chait gallery's natural history
director. He said it was acquired before Egypt enacted a law
prohibiting the export of its cultural heritage.

The most expensive item sold yesterday was the dinosaur skull. Its new
owner also won a rare giant wolf skull from the Rancho La Brea
Formation for $50,000.

It was not known what kind of house, apartment or gallery the skull
would be going to, though Mr. Herskowitz hinted that the buyer has
been known to show his collecti

Re: [meteorite-list] Link to Al Mahbas Pallasite Photo

[Jason Utas]

Hello Rob, All,
Looks a lot more like NWA 4482 to me...just a different pallasite.
I bought a piece of a pallasite that I was told was "Al Mahbas" as
well - definitely not desert varnished like it, and visually typical
of 4482...
Regards,
Jason

On 3/24/07, Rob Wesel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Several of you have asked for photos, reasonable request, so a made a quick
> page on the site
>
> http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com/catalog/Almahbas.htm
>
> Rob Wesel
> http://www.nakhladogmeteorites.com
> --
> We are the music makers...
> and we are the dreamers of the dreams.
> Willy Wonka, 1971
>
>
>
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Fusion crusts on stony meteorites

[Jason Utas]

Hello Marcin, All,
It's probably impossible to say precisely what that melt is without
tapping into those gas bubbles and checking out the composition of
whatever gas (if any) is in there.
Just because there is no other melt within the matrix of the meteorite
itself does not rule out the possibility of its being impact melt.
The fact that it occurs on the edge is actually not a bad indicator of
the vein of melt (if it is one) simply having been a weak point in the
stone.  As it hit lower levels of the atmosphere and stress increased,
the stone would have split along the crack, and you get what we see -
a nice thick vein of melt along a side of the stone, which has since
been fused slightly over (it was early enough to remelt the surface of
the melt, but not early enough to burn it away completely).
Of course, there's the other angle as well - there is no other impact
melt in the meteorite (to suggest that this would indeed be melt), and
the only apparent melt occurs on he trailing edge of the stone where
one would expect a very thick fusion crust.
I tend to lean towards the possibility that this melt is fusion crust,
simply because I see no other melt (I know there are a few shock
veins, but you're looking at a substantial amount of melt there)
within the stone.  It was an oriented stone, and I have seen unaltered
fragments of meteorite included within crust on the trailing edges of
highly oriented stones before - it's unusual, but not unheard-of to
see such things - most of the time, however, the meteorite simply
isn't cut (who cuts beautifully oriented meteorites..?) and I assume
that these features tend not to be seen for just such a reason.
Of course, in the original pictures that Marcin posted of the main
mass, the 'rear' of the meteorite did appear to be quite rough...a
late split along a weak vein of melt is possible, but I find this
unlikely given the appearance of the rest of the stone.
Regards,
Jason


On 3/23/07, PolandMET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some spies melting my emails to the list.
>
> Here is my personal collection full slice of NWA 2826.
> It have also this thick crust but not soo beautifull as on some other
> slices, but I have hold it as it was the only one full slice that contain
> soul of this LL5. Big troilites, one big chondrule?, large unknown dark
> inclusions and shock veins.
>
> I have leave photos in original size for better view, but it is only 2M pix
> so they are not soo sharp.
>
> Some fragments was glued back together becouse they was broken while cutting
> but fortunatelly I was able to find them and put together like puzzles.
>
> There are also interesting two different inclusions in this slice. This
> large dark one on the bottom side and one grey on the center right.
>
> slice is around 9cm wide
> ===
>
> http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/P0019261.JPG
> http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/P0019262.JPG
> macro view
> http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/P0019263.JPG
> http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/P0019264.JPG
> http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/P0019265.JPG
> http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/P0019266.JPG
> http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/P0019267.JPG
> http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/P0019268.JPG
> http://www.meteoryt.net/ebay/P0019269.JPG
>
>
> -[ MARCIN CIMALA ]-[ I.M.C.A.#3667 ]-
> http://www.Meteoryt.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.PolandMET.com   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.Gao-Guenie.com  GSM +48(607)535 195
> [ Member of Polish Meteoritical Society ]
>
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND, Final

[Jason Utas]

Mike, All (...),
I apologized to those who deserved it.  After what you said, I don;t
believe you should get one.  You seem to think that your account of
the dates was correct.  I don't.  Steve Schoner just posted to say
that your account is false as well.

-- And you did assume that John had withheld information from you out
of spite.  I stupidly believed you when you stated that you had
actually tried to contact him to resolve the issue as opposed to
brooding on it for seven years.  Sorry Mike, I don;t believe in
multiple dropped emails.  It doesn't happen that often - and even if
it did, by whatever stroke of luck, actually happen, you still decided
to simply sit there in steeping malevolence for the better half of a
decade, instead of simply calling him (google his name, the number's
there).
I only stated the supposition that he was angry with you after
believing what you said about repeated contact, etc.  If your
statement had been true, then yes, the statements that I made before
would have been justified.  I apologized or the incorrectness of
these, based on the faulty information I was fed by you.  When I say
that I try to contact a person, I don;t simply give up after a few
emails that aren't responded to, sorry.  If that ever happens, I call,
write, go see them - anything to ensure that they actually get
whatever message they need to get (assuming that it's something as
important as this sort of issue, which ends in a clearly malevolent
misunderstanding on your part - lasting for seven years).

So yes, I'm sorry my statements regarding John's intentions were not
true.  They were less vindictive than yours, which you already state
you apologized for.  I apologized for mine regarding him as well.

However, unless you discount Steve Schoner's take on the story as
well, I see no way in which you can possibly defend your statements
from before.  The time scale, as I stated before, was indeed measured
in months instead of years.  Not only I, but Steve as well stated
this.

The only real problem that I see is that you believe unconditionally
that your account of what happened seven years ago is correct.
I hate to break it to you Mike, but even *you* can be wrong.

Jason

*And Mike, you can take my name out of the address list in your
messages - the only reason I'm still getting any mail from you is that
it's routed through the list.

On 3/20/07, Michael Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Jason,
this is sad, your attempt at an apology by saying that
everything that I said was a lie is not an apology at
all.
I have emailed Dr. Wasson privately, apologized for
any mmisunderstanding or percieved wrongs by either
one of us.
That being said, every last thing I said on this list
is true as far as my attempting to get the data for
the last seven years. You actually need to stop saying
that I am a liar on here. This is clearly your intent.
This is not a private matter, there were issues
involved with this meteorite that affected the
hundreds of collectors that paid for it. Some of the
things should not have been said, that is true. But
the facts needed to be heard.
You told me John was angry at me "snatching" the
meteorite from under him and yourself, the fact that I
never got a response for years seems to play to that
fact. What else was I supposed to think, when my
emails went unanswered? If Dr. Wasson never saw them,
then it is a simple matter of mail lost in cyberspace,
not an uncommon thing these days.
Again Jason, I have emailed Dr. Wasson, thanked him
for providing the data today, and apologized to him
for any percieved wrong.
Now it is time to let it drop, we have the data, that
is all we need now.
Just please do not call me a liar again, that is a
little difficult for me to ignore.
thanks everyone, including Dr. Wasson for cleaning the
closet and putting a name to Fredericksburg/Richland.

Michael Farmer


By the, this is exactly what this list is here for,
the sharing of information, even if it takes some
chatter to get the information shaken out of the
trees.


--- Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hello All,
> Dr. Wason just emailed both Mike and myself,
> clearing this entire issue up.
> I don't know exactly why this entire argument was
> brought to the
> list's attention, as it was clearly a private
> matter, and for this I
> apologize.
>
> After the ridiculous accusations that Mike posted
> against John (which
> were founded in fasle assumptions made on Mike's
> part), I also
> responded with comments that were technically
> untrue.  I would like to
> clear this up.
> Mike stated that John refused to send him the data
> because of a
> disagreement that they had regarding the purchase of
> the iron by Mike.
>  I assumed that Mike knew what he was talking about,
> and wasn't simply
> throwing wild accusations around.  As it turns o

Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND, Final

[Jason Utas]

Hello All,
Dr. Wason just emailed both Mike and myself, clearing this entire issue up.
I don't know exactly why this entire argument was brought to the
list's attention, as it was clearly a private matter, and for this I
apologize.

After the ridiculous accusations that Mike posted against John (which
were founded in fasle assumptions made on Mike's part), I also
responded with comments that were technically untrue.  I would like to
clear this up.
Mike stated that John refused to send him the data because of a
disagreement that they had regarding the purchase of the iron by Mike.
I assumed that Mike knew what he was talking about, and wasn't simply
throwing wild accusations around.  As it turns out, Mike was entirely
wrong on this, and, as a result, my argument was false as well.  I
supposed that, based on Mike's supposition that Dr. Wasson was
actually retaining information for whatever purposes (supposedly
spite), Farmer should simply apologize and that the entire issue would
be cleared up.

As it turns out, Dr. Wasson had simply become occupied with other work
at the time, and had forgotten to email Mike the data.
That being said, the question arises as to why Mike did not simply
re-request the data/ask Dr. Wasson to submit the iron again.
Regarding this, I can offer no explanation - Mike will have to help
you out on that end.

In any case, I apologize for the presumptions which I helped to
further, that were based on the false data provided by Michael Farmer.
Based on what I actually knew at the time, coupled with the
information from Michael Farmer, which I made the mistake of believing
as true, there was little possibility, in my opinion, of my reaching
another conclusion at the time.

John, I apologize for the statements that I made, and I would like to
apologize again to the list for all of this.

Jason


On 3/20/07, Michael Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I think Sergey's explanation is most likely, that the
Richland mass was the transported piece, since it only
weighed 12 kilograms.
I don't recall seeing any signs of human damage (other
than many plow cuts) but this was a very hard iron.  I
like  good mystery, and this is an interesting one.
Unfortunately we do not know the exact location of the
find, so there is not much more that could be done to
search the farm for more pieces.
Michael Farmer
--- dean bessey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> --- Michael Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jeff,
> > Now comes the question of how a large piece of a
> > meteorite came to rest 178 miles (297 km) from the
> > first piece.
> > Does anyone have an explanation as to how or why
> it
> > could/would be transported so far back then, and
> > buried in a farmers field?
> >
> I suspect that the natives could have done it. The
> question is why (And not bother to take care of at
> it
> afterwards).
> It might have been to eroded to tell (And there may
> no
> longer be photos or memories of the uncut mass) but
> I
> wonder if there was evidence on the original mass
> that
> some pieces were crudely chipped of.
> If there was pieces chipped of, a plausable
> explanation of why the indians took so much trouble
> to
> move it is that they were making iron tools with it
> (A
> semi common occurance in the pre iron world).
> Then after some years of this chipping, neglect, war
> or other reasons may have caused it to be abandoned
> and slowly be buried by natural means.
> Of course that is onely one possible explanation and
> there is no real evidence for it but would be a
> reason
> why it was moved. It could well be another fall.
> Just an idea
> Cheers
> DEAN
>
>
>
>
>
>

> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures
> list.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
> __
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>

__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list


__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Re: [meteorite-list] Frederiksburg iron

[Jason Utas]

Done with French...
o...k.

You're lying.  Copy and paste it for the list to see, please.
I told you that you did wrong in not apologizing.  You're saying that
I said that you did wrong back then.
Come on Mike, I want to see this.

I told you that John saw it that way.  JOHN SAW IT THAT WAY.
I've said it at least ten times now.

John saw what you did as snatching it. =/= You DID snatch it.

Do you see the difference?  I do

And the question isn't, as you say,  why I think I know more about the
deal than you do.
I never said that I did.
You said that.
I simply said that I knew my side and that you knew yours.
If you think you know more about my side of it than I do (apparently
it's all lies anyways), go ahead and do so - I know you're wrong, and
frankly I don't value your opinion on this highly.
Now, you've told me your end of the story about six times now, and I
think I know it pretty well.  Not better than you, but pretty damn
well.

Now I understand why people get frustrated with you.  Even when I type
in English, you don't read half of what I say, and only take the bits
that incite you even more.
And why the hell is this all public again?  What thewhy?  Just...why?
Why the hell do 600 people need to read this?  Or delete it.

I don't get it Mike...I thought this was resolved hours ago, and made
a little note saying it was resolved privately.  Then you dragged it
up again, and now you're just putting crap that I never said in my
mouth.  Arguing is one thing, but lying?  You lost me with that one.
It's like you just want to drag it out for the sake of the argument.

And nice playing the age card - just fyi, 12 year old's have
functioning brains with memories too ;)
In fact, studies show that until puberty ends, the brain has phases of
development and expansion, as well as a vastly increased
learning/memory capacity compared with that of adults.  So if
anything, I probably remember this all better than you do...

Jason



On 3/19/07, Michael Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Jason,
Apologize to John for what? Paying the man who wanted
to sell the meteorite, something that John would
not/could not do? Sorry, but no thanks.
If Dr. Wasson is holding the data, waiting for an
apology from me after I gave him more than half a
kilo, that what kind of scientist is he? How did I
deal with John after the fact? I gave him more than
500 grams of a rare meteorite, and never heard one
word from him again, so please explain how I did
anything after the fact? That makes no sense.
There is no argument here, just a simple reciting of
facts regarding a meteorite that I bought. How old
were you back then, I don't know your exact age, but I
guess you would have been around 11 or 12 years old
back then? Why do you presume to know more about this
transaction than the man who made the deal, jumped on
a plane, and spent more than $20,000 in hundred dollar
bills? That alone makes no sense.
Actually you told me privately that I did wrong,
whether knowingly or unkowingly by "snatching" the
meteorite from your/Wasson's hands. I told you that
the emails clearly showed that Wasson was not
responding to him, so he found me on the internet,
offered me the meteorite, and I bought it. I
understand that you and Wasson might be dissapointed
that you did not get the meteorite, but obviously the
negotiations were not going well, or he would not have
looked me up and sold me the meteorite now would he?
It seems that by your temper, and use of curse words,
that there is an underlying issue here, and you
refusal to answer my private emails confirms that,
since I countered your assertions with no rebuttal.

Enjoy your French homework, I found Spanish a much
more useful language to learn in today's world. I
myself, still suffer jetlag, so must get to bed.

thanks to Mike Jenson for clearing up the
classification issue, that allows everyone to finalize
their collection information.
Michael Farmer

--- Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Mike,
> Again, you ignore my difference of opinion with you
> on the time scale,
> after restating a minute ago that it was seven years
> ago, etc.
> I refuse to further this travesty of an argument.
> If you simply
> ignore me the entire time, why the hell should I
> prolong it?
> Good Night.  I've said my bit - assuming that
> Fredericksburg would get
> its own name, even though it is paired to Richland,
> you can apologize
> to John and it'll be submitted.  If you think your
> pride is worth more
> than that, it's your decision, and no one's fault
> but your own, if not
> by the original action, by the way you dealed with
> John afterwards.
> I just wondered why it hadn't been submitted after
> so long.  I had
> only our side of the story before, now I have yours
> as well.  It's a
> s