[meteorite-list] RICHLAND
Hi, All, Strictly as a dumb and innocent bystander on the Thread: Illinois Irons, which is now and forever more shall be about a Texas/Alaska Iron, I have a dumb and innocent question (lamb to the slaughter). Here's what the Catalogue of Meteorites says about RICHLAND: A mass of 30lb (13.6kg) was found when an old well was being cleaned out. Listed, F.C. Leonard (1956). Analysis, 5.56 %Ni, E.P. Henderson & O.E. Monnig (1957). It has been suggested that it is a transported piece of Coahuila, but is chemically distinct. More recent analysis, 5.40 %Ni, 60.6 ppm.Ga, 182 ppm.Ge, 8.2 ppm.Ir, J.T. Wasson (1974). Structurally distinct from Coahuila; shock-melted troilite, V.F. Buchwald (1975). Here's my dumb and innocent question: If the mass of RICHLAND is 13.6 kilos and the mass of (RICHLAND (FREDERICKSBERG) is 47+ kilos, and FREDERICKSBERG is a piece of RICHLAND, isn't Mike's 47 kilos (you carried it thru the airport?) the Main Mass? Naive little physicist says if they are two pieces of the same meteoroid that fell at the same time, the biggest piece is the Main Mass, as in, that corresponds to the physical reality. OK, ready for the beaurocratic axe to fall. Sterling K. Webb - __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Richland (Fredericksburg)
Hello All, I was one to inquire information about the Fredericksburg. My intent was not to bash Bob Evans or anybody. Just recently I bought a small 4.5g Fredricksburg (sic) from Mare Meteoritics and was wondering why this piece was selling on ebay at such a high price. I wrote to Brian rather than to Bob because I knew Brian from past experiences. I had noted that this piece was selling at near $15 a gram on ebay vs. a dollar a gram Mike Martinez was selling. Brian had mentioned an incident a couple years ago involving this meteorite to which I had gone back to look up. Whenever I get a new meteorite to add to my collection, I try to find as much info I can about it. Sometimes all the info is just what's in the Meteoritical Society, other times a little more digging is necessary. Believe it or not sometimes some more info can be had by reading what sellers have to say about a piece in their descriptions. Carl Brian Cox wrote: I'm trying to help clear up any questions regarding the Fredericksburg meteorite that I sold to Bob Evans on February 15, 2009. I've been asked by several IMCA and list members for this information to determine when Bob Evans got the meteorite from me... _ Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009 __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND
First of all, for the many of you without access to Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, here is the quote from Wasson, J.T., Huber, H., and Malvin, D.J. (2007) Formation of IIAB iron meteorites. GCA 71, 760-781: The 47-kg Fredericksburg (Texas) iron was first reported to us by a person living in Alaska, who stated that it had been inherited from a deceased relative who had lived near Fredericksburg. Our analysis of the sample shows that, within error, its composition is the same as that of the Richland (Texas) iron. Both irons appear to be strongly weathered. However, these two Texas locations are 297 km apart, farther apart than plausible for a strewn field. Our best guess is that human transport has been involved, and that they are fragments from the same fall event. Fredericksburg is not an approved name; we suggest that this mass be referred to as Richland (Fredericksburg) unless future studies imply that it resulted from a distinct fall. There are many irons with multiple named masses, although all of the masses share the same formal name, in this case "Richland." For historical reasons, as well as to recognize to possibility that pairings are never 100% certain, the names of the individual masses are frequently preserved in catalogs and the literature, and should be preserved by dealers and collectors as well. In this case, changing the "main mass" designation (which I consider to be a sloppy term) doesn't really help the situation. It will always be better to refer the new piece as the "Fredericksburg mass of Richland" or, as Wasson suggests, the "Richland (Fredericksburg) mass". Another classic example of an iron with multiple named masses is North Chile, which includes, among others, the well-known Filomena and Tocopilla masses. I've now added the Richland synonyms to the MetBull database. Jeff At 01:21 AM 3/20/2007, Sterling K. Webb wrote: Hi, All, Strictly as a dumb and innocent bystander on the Thread: Illinois Irons, which is now and forever more shall be about a Texas/Alaska Iron, I have a dumb and innocent question (lamb to the slaughter). Here's what the Catalogue of Meteorites says about RICHLAND: A mass of 30lb (13.6kg) was found when an old well was being cleaned out. Listed, F.C. Leonard (1956). Analysis, 5.56 %Ni, E.P. Henderson & O.E. Monnig (1957). It has been suggested that it is a transported piece of Coahuila, but is chemically distinct. More recent analysis, 5.40 %Ni, 60.6 ppm.Ga, 182 ppm.Ge, 8.2 ppm.Ir, J.T. Wasson (1974). Structurally distinct from Coahuila; shock-melted troilite, V.F. Buchwald (1975). Here's my dumb and innocent question: If the mass of RICHLAND is 13.6 kilos and the mass of (RICHLAND (FREDERICKSBERG) is 47+ kilos, and FREDERICKSBERG is a piece of RICHLAND, isn't Mike's 47 kilos (you carried it thru the airport?) the Main Mass? Naive little physicist says if they are two pieces of the same meteoroid that fell at the same time, the biggest piece is the Main Mass, as in, that corresponds to the physical reality. OK, ready for the beaurocratic axe to fall. Sterling K. Webb - __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 954 National Center Reston, VA 20192, USA __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND
thank you Jeff, after more than seven years of trying to get this information with no success, it is nice to put to rest the issue and close the book on "fredericksburg". Michael Farmer --- Jeff Grossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First of all, for the many of you without access to > Geochimica et > Cosmochimica Acta, here is the quote from Wasson, > J.T., Huber, H., > and Malvin, D.J. (2007) Formation of IIAB iron > meteorites. GCA 71, 760-781: > > >The 47-kg Fredericksburg (Texas) iron was first > reported > >to us by a person living in Alaska, who stated that > it had > >been inherited from a deceased relative who had > lived near > >Fredericksburg. Our analysis of the sample shows > that, > >within error, its composition is the same as that > of the > >Richland (Texas) iron. Both irons appear to be > strongly > >weathered. However, these two Texas locations are > >297 km apart, farther apart than plausible for a > strewn > >field. Our best guess is that human transport has > been involved, > >and that they are fragments from the same fall > >event. Fredericksburg is not an approved name; we > suggest > >that this mass be referred to as Richland > (Fredericksburg) > >unless future studies imply that it resulted from a > distinct > >fall. > > There are many irons with multiple named masses, > although all of the > masses share the same formal name, in this case > "Richland." For > historical reasons, as well as to recognize to > possibility that > pairings are never 100% certain, the names of the > individual masses > are frequently preserved in catalogs and the > literature, and should > be preserved by dealers and collectors as well. In > this case, > changing the "main mass" designation (which I > consider to be a sloppy > term) doesn't really help the situation. It will > always be better to > refer the new piece as the "Fredericksburg mass of > Richland" or, as > Wasson suggests, the "Richland (Fredericksburg) > mass". > > Another classic example of an iron with multiple > named masses is > North Chile, which includes, among others, the > well-known Filomena > and Tocopilla masses. > > I've now added the Richland synonyms to the MetBull > database. > > Jeff > > At 01:21 AM 3/20/2007, Sterling K. Webb wrote: > >Hi, All, > > > > Strictly as a dumb and innocent bystander on > the > >Thread: Illinois Irons, which is now and forever > more > >shall be about a Texas/Alaska Iron, I have a dumb > >and innocent question (lamb to the slaughter). > > > > Here's what the Catalogue of Meteorites says > >about RICHLAND: > > > >A mass of 30lb (13.6kg) was found when > >an old well was being cleaned out. Listed, > >F.C. Leonard (1956). > > > >Analysis, 5.56 %Ni, E.P. Henderson & > >O.E. Monnig (1957). > > > >It has been suggested that it is a transported > >piece of Coahuila, but is chemically distinct. > >More recent analysis, 5.40 %Ni, 60.6 ppm.Ga, > >182 ppm.Ge, 8.2 ppm.Ir, J.T. Wasson (1974). > > > >Structurally distinct from Coahuila; shock-melted > >troilite, V.F. Buchwald (1975). > > > > Here's my dumb and innocent question: If the > >mass of RICHLAND is 13.6 kilos and the mass of > >(RICHLAND (FREDERICKSBERG) is 47+ kilos, > >and FREDERICKSBERG is a piece of RICHLAND, > >isn't Mike's 47 kilos (you carried it thru the > airport?) > >the Main Mass? > > > > Naive little physicist says if they are two > pieces > >of the same meteoroid that fell at the same time, > the > >biggest piece is the Main Mass, as in, that > corresponds > >to the physical reality. > > > > OK, ready for the beaurocratic axe to fall. > > > > > >Sterling K. Webb > >- > > > >__ > >Meteorite-list mailing list > >Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 > US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 > 954 National Center > Reston, VA 20192, USA > > > __ > 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
Jeff, Now comes the question of how a large piece of a meteorite came to rest 178 miles (297 km) from the first piece. This meteorite was plowed up in the 1940's, where it had been periodically damaging the farmer's equipment. He finally saw the meteorite that had caused him so much trouble and dug it out. The main mass had numerous plow cuts on it, but I am sure the meteorite dished out far more damage than it received. 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 have my doubts that this could be possible. If the natives had taken the trouble to carry it that far (before horses) I doubt they would have cast it off so like junk, it would likely have ended up in a mound or something. Michael Farmer --- Jeff Grossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First of all, for the many of you without access to > Geochimica et > Cosmochimica Acta, here is the quote from Wasson, > J.T., Huber, H., > and Malvin, D.J. (2007) Formation of IIAB iron > meteorites. GCA 71, 760-781: > > >The 47-kg Fredericksburg (Texas) iron was first > reported > >to us by a person living in Alaska, who stated that > it had > >been inherited from a deceased relative who had > lived near > >Fredericksburg. Our analysis of the sample shows > that, > >within error, its composition is the same as that > of the > >Richland (Texas) iron. Both irons appear to be > strongly > >weathered. However, these two Texas locations are > >297 km apart, farther apart than plausible for a > strewn > >field. Our best guess is that human transport has > been involved, > >and that they are fragments from the same fall > >event. Fredericksburg is not an approved name; we > suggest > >that this mass be referred to as Richland > (Fredericksburg) > >unless future studies imply that it resulted from a > distinct > >fall. > > There are many irons with multiple named masses, > although all of the > masses share the same formal name, in this case > "Richland." For > historical reasons, as well as to recognize to > possibility that > pairings are never 100% certain, the names of the > individual masses > are frequently preserved in catalogs and the > literature, and should > be preserved by dealers and collectors as well. In > this case, > changing the "main mass" designation (which I > consider to be a sloppy > term) doesn't really help the situation. It will > always be better to > refer the new piece as the "Fredericksburg mass of > Richland" or, as > Wasson suggests, the "Richland (Fredericksburg) > mass". > > Another classic example of an iron with multiple > named masses is > North Chile, which includes, among others, the > well-known Filomena > and Tocopilla masses. > > I've now added the Richland synonyms to the MetBull > database. > > Jeff > > At 01:21 AM 3/20/2007, Sterling K. Webb wrote: > >Hi, All, > > > > Strictly as a dumb and innocent bystander on > the > >Thread: Illinois Irons, which is now and forever > more > >shall be about a Texas/Alaska Iron, I have a dumb > >and innocent question (lamb to the slaughter). > > > > Here's what the Catalogue of Meteorites says > >about RICHLAND: > > > >A mass of 30lb (13.6kg) was found when > >an old well was being cleaned out. Listed, > >F.C. Leonard (1956). > > > >Analysis, 5.56 %Ni, E.P. Henderson & > >O.E. Monnig (1957). > > > >It has been suggested that it is a transported > >piece of Coahuila, but is chemically distinct. > >More recent analysis, 5.40 %Ni, 60.6 ppm.Ga, > >182 ppm.Ge, 8.2 ppm.Ir, J.T. Wasson (1974). > > > >Structurally distinct from Coahuila; shock-melted > >troilite, V.F. Buchwald (1975). > > > > Here's my dumb and innocent question: If the > >mass of RICHLAND is 13.6 kilos and the mass of > >(RICHLAND (FREDERICKSBERG) is 47+ kilos, > >and FREDERICKSBERG is a piece of RICHLAND, > >isn't Mike's 47 kilos (you carried it thru the > airport?) > >the Main Mass? > > > > Naive little physicist says if they are two > pieces > >of the same meteoroid that fell at the same time, > the > >biggest piece is the Main Mass, as in, that > corresponds > >to the physical reality. > > > > OK, ready for the beaurocratic axe to fall. > > > > > >Sterling K. Webb > >- > > > >__ > >Meteorite-list mailing list > >Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > >http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184 > US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383 > 954 National Center > Reston, VA 20192, USA > > > __ > 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/listin
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:23:01 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: >could be possible. If the natives had taken the >trouble to carry it that far (before horses) I doubt >they would have cast it off so like junk, it would >likely have ended up in a mound or something. If you go with the theory of paleoindians moving it, I suppose you could come up with multiple possible explanations of why it was "cast off"-- amongst them being the group that owned the meteorite being wiped out by war or disease or having to abandon the area quickly because of war, disease, or drought. Or maybe it WAS once in a mound that has since been destroyed by people or weathering. Or it could have been buried in the ground like Winona. Or it could have been kept so long that tribal memory of what it was supposed to be that made it valuable to them faded, and some great-great-great-great grandson of the original finders chucked it out during a spring cleaning. Or... __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND
Or the first mass of 13.6 kg (only) was moved but found first ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Darren Garrison Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:04 PM To: Meteorite List Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:23:01 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: >could be possible. If the natives had taken the >trouble to carry it that far (before horses) I doubt >they would have cast it off so like junk, it would >likely have ended up in a mound or something. If you go with the theory of paleoindians moving it, I suppose you could come up with multiple possible explanations of why it was "cast off"-- amongst them being the group that owned the meteorite being wiped out by war or disease or having to abandon the area quickly because of war, disease, or drought. Or maybe it WAS once in a mound that has since been destroyed by people or weathering. Or it could have been buried in the ground like Winona. Or it could have been kept so long that tribal memory of what it was supposed to be that made it valuable to them faded, and some great-great-great-great grandson of the original finders chucked it out during a spring cleaning. Or... __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ NOD32 2129 (20070320) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND
--- 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
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND
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
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND
Hi List, On the original mass of RICHLAND ) and its possible human or natural transport: For the record, the first mass of RICHLAND found was apparently >15.4 kg, not 13.keg as has been mentioned throughout this exchange. V. Buchwald (1975) indicates that the while 'main mass' of Richland was 30 pounds (13.6kg), but the mass found in the well in Texas was supposedly 34 pounds (15.4kg). The Smithsonian acquired a 961 gram slice and a 40 gram part slice for a total of 1.001kg, and the Monnig collection acquired "1kg" so those would be the additional masses part of the piece taken out of the well in 1951. Given that the Monnig collection has two specimens, a slice of 0.875 kg and another end cut of 3.671kg, it would be my innocent assumption that they got the end cut more recently and that the 0.875 was their original piece of the 15.4kg that was found. Originally the finder had drilled a few holes and managed to core the iron, and banged it up with a hammer not to mention also most probably inadvertently creating a area of false "fusion crust" by trying to melt the find with an acetylene torch (well-justified speculation by VB). So whatever he removed would have brought the weight to around 16 kg. For the question of transport of the smaller originally described RICHLAND (Richland) specimen, let me quote Buchwald for those who would like to interpret whether they think it was tossed into the well or found as a result of the digging of the well: p. 1020 Buchwald (1975) "While cleaning out an old water well, he found the meteorite among the debris at the bottom. The depth was reported to be 5.5 to 5.6 meters, but the mass may have been originally located in the wall at a higher level." Not sure if that was posted earlier, as I've sensibly read and deleted the Tommy Gun exchange which described the RICHLAND hostage situation, but I put it here because it seems a case can be made that someone tossed it into the well, or equally, that it was found in its 'original' resting place inside the sediment (assuming sedimentary) in the wall of the well. If it was in the wall though, it could have been put there for structural integrity, too, though. Best Health, Doug - Original Message - From: "Sergey Vasiliev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND > Or the first mass of 13.6 kg (only) was moved but found first ;-) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Darren > Garrison > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:04 PM > To: Meteorite List > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND > > > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:23:01 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: > > >could be possible. If the natives had taken the > >trouble to carry it that far (before horses) I doubt > >they would have cast it off so like junk, it would > >likely have ended up in a mound or something. > > If you go with the theory of paleoindians moving it, I suppose you could > come up > with multiple possible explanations of why it was "cast off"-- amongst them > being the group that owned the meteorite being wiped out by war or disease > or > having to abandon the area quickly because of war, disease, or drought. Or > maybe it WAS once in a mound that has since been destroyed by people or > weathering. Or it could have been buried in the ground like Winona. Or it > could have been kept so long that tribal memory of what it was supposed to > be > that made it valuable to them faded, and some great-great-great-great > grandson > of the original finders chucked it out during a spring cleaning. Or... > __ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > __ NOD32 2129 (20070320) Information __ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.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] RICHLAND
--- 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. > That is probably right. But if so, that makes for other interesting questions. The first question is did Richland show evidence of having crude attempts at chipping pieces off to make iron tools (See my previous posting) before it was cut? That would explain the reason why it was moved in prehistoric times. Also, Richland was found in a well or something - possibly put there for support, which means you have no idea where the strewnfield is located since it was likely moved (Even if Fredericksburg was the transported meteorite). This means that the Fredericksburg meteorite was probably found where it fell. (And for those of you who dislike and just have to question meteorite names then The Richland mass should be called Fredericksburg - not the other way around). Anyway, my real point is that with some research you should be able to pinpoint, or at least narrow down whar farm Fredericksburg was found on. We know that there are at least two masses. And if there are two there are probably more (If there was only one it could have fallen in one piece without breaking up and no other mass would exist). But we know that the original mass broke up creating multiple pieces so there should be more still unfound. As a result a search of the Fredericksburg strewnfield would most likely turn up more masses. Of course another perfectly plausable explanation is that there might only have been one mass in the first place but the indians wanted to make iron tools and the original mass was just to big to move (and carry home). So they broke it in two - therby artifically creating Richland. Just some thoughts Cheers DEAN 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND, Final
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] RICHLAND, Final
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 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
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND, Final
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 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 >
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND, Final
PLEASE TAKE THIS OFF THE LIST, WE DO NOT CARE AT THIS POINT...THE BATTLE DOES NOT INVOLVED THE LIST AT THIS POINT. PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF THE NEW LIST MEMBERS THAT ARE ALSO SICK OF THE BICKER MATCH. Dave F. Jason Utas wrote: 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, >
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND, Final
There is no need to further this conversation. My account is not false, Steve did not say my account is false. He tried to remember the events from years ago, just like me, exact dates and even the name of the owner has faded. Months, a year, it no longer matters, the facts are that the man was not paid, wanted money, and seeked my out to buy his meteorite, which I did. Perhaps I was wrong to think that it was John upset with me, it seems you are the one upset. If you think that I never emailed the man who was classifing my meteorite, well, again, that makes no sense at all now does it? Were my emails blocked, deleted, sent to spam box, ignored? I don't know, nor do I now care, the issue is resolved for me and the buyers now. You seem to be adamant in your assertions, me in mine, so how about we agree to disagree? It seems to be as far as we will get on this topic. Case closed. Michael Farmer --- Jason Utas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 d
Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND, Final
Well, Dave, at least they could have made it a little bit more interesting for the new list members, illustrating the thread with nice pictures. Photo-duty for fighting-posts! So that the other members wouldn't have asked themselves: Errr.Farmer has a piece of that iron, Wasson has a piece of it, Schoner has one, (only Jason not), where is their problem? And while these were arguing about, whether the iron was bought after 11 months, 1 year or 13 months, they could have enjoyed in each email of "you're a liar, I'm a liar, I apologize for this, but not for that" a fine picture of Fredericksburg and Richland. The main masses, pieces on museum's displays, fullslices, and so on. Cause Fredericksburg is a real fine hexahedrite! Displays excellent Neumann lines, has tiny strange schreibersites, looking like alien character, rhabdites - though that guy is a little bit problematic to preserve. Iron-God Pilski once prepared me some. Jewels! For them I'd abandon each North Chile! Buckleboo! Martin -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Dave Freeman mjwy Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. März 2007 05:20 An: Jason Utas Cc: Meteorite-list Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] RICHLAND, Final PLEASE TAKE THIS OFF THE LIST, WE DO NOT CARE AT THIS POINT...THE BATTLE DOES NOT INVOLVED THE LIST AT THIS POINT. PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF THE NEW LIST MEMBERS THAT ARE ALSO SICK OF THE BICKER MATCH. Dave F. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
