Fwd: Re: [meteorite-list] Takysie Lake

From: meteorites_at_space.com <meteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:42:00 2004
Message-ID: <20010117053632.24003.cpmta_at_c000.snv.cp.net>

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Takysie Lake
To: ase_at_planet-interkom.de, meteorite_list@meteoritecentral.com,
From: meteorites_at_space.com
Date: 16 Jan 2001 21:29:10 -0800

On Tue, 16 January 2001, Alexander Seidel wrote:

> "Darryl S. Futrell" wrote:
> >
> > Back in 1968 I traded for a 10 gram slice of Takysie Lake, BC, Canada. It
> > had been written up in the Dec. 1967 issue of Meteoritics (which I don't see
> > on my bookshelf) by Nininger, Huss, or both. They weren't sure if the many
> > stones Nininger or both found were meteoritic or not, but Nininger was
> > convinced they all had fusion crusts. It was suggested that they might be
> > lunar, which aroused my curiosity. My slice doesn't look like anything
> > lunar to me, but then, I haven't seen a full variety of Apollo rock types.
> > My slice has a light brownish stain for a crust. If it originally had more
> > of a fusion crust, it didn't survive the slicing.
> >
> > I never heard another word about it, except that some tests had been
> > inconclusive. Has anyone ever heard of these Takysie Lake stones and what
> > they turned out to be?
> Hi Darryl and List,
> In the MetBase remarks section I found the following information:
> "The brecciated material collected, H.H.Nininger and G.I.Huss,
> Meteoritics, 1967, 3, p.169, is probably a conglomerate or breccia,
> A.L.Graham et al., Cat. Met., London, 1985."
> Literature with keywords on Takysie:
> Huss G.I. (1967) "Field investigation of the Takysie stones", 1966
> (abs.) Meteoritics 3(3), 113.
> Huss G.I. (1977) "Significance of the Yamato meteorites" Meteoritics
> 12(2), 141-144
> Nininger H.H. (1967) "Discovery of the Takysie, B.C., stone", 1965
> (abs.) Meteoritics 3(3), 121
> Nininger, Huss (1967) "The Takysie Lake, B.C., Stones: Meteorites or
> Moon Rock?" Meteoritics (3(4), 169-178
> There seems to be no more recent info on this one.

Many years ago. 1975 to 1978, I had a series of conversations with Harvey Nininger, and G. Huss about this very strange material. I also obtained from them several pieces after I asked for samples with the so called "fusion crust" Sure enough, the surface appears to have a fusion crust, but it more of a light tan, like that which one would see on Norton County. More striking is the weathering zone on the larger piece. This weathering zone extends several mm into the matrix.

In my discussions over the phone with Nininger, he was convinced that it was a new type of meteorite. His conclusion was based upon several facts that he ascertained regarding the distribution of the samples that he recovered and the nature of the finds themselves.

1) In his visits to the site, he had made collections of the rocks in question noting that they had a distribution that was consistent with that of known meteorite falls. In fact, according to him he told me that the distribution was a "classical one"-- that is small one at one end, and larger ones several miles at the other end.

2) The rocks in question have a "weathering rind" below a crust that is in most of the samples flaking off of the masses.

(Nininger was of the opinion that this alone indicated that the rocks were not terrestrial)

3)The type of rock was out of place with all the other rocks found in the area. In other words, if one went beyond the boundaries of the known distribution field, (strewnfield) then they would not be found.

Nininger was so perplexed by the nature of these rocks that he looked to the moon as the origin. And in 1967 he was almost certain that they were lunar meteorites, blasted off the moon by meteoroid impacts. (In this he was ahead of his time as it was not till years that the first actual Lunite was found.)

Lunar possibilites aside, Nininger was certain in his convictions that the Takysie Lake stones were meteorites of a new type. And he was aware that they were not like the moon rocks that later were returned from the moon. But in one of the last conversations that I had with him we talked about Takysie Lake stones, and he remained firm in his belief, despite the fact that they are so different from any known meteorite, that they are meteorites.

He mentioned that they could not have been on the ground for long, as the ones that he recovered years later after the first finds were more weathered than the ones first found in 1967.

A mystery indeed.

Subsequent tests have been inconclusive.

But many years ago, 1990 (?), I gave a slice of it to Ron Farrell (when we were on better terms) for analysis by a Lab that he was dealing with. He gave it to them blind-- that is he did not tell the what it was. And the lab was familiar with and had first hand experience with lunar samples brought back from the moon in the Apollo missions.

According to Mr. Farrell, "the reasearcher was visibly excited by the nature of this rock, and asked 'where did you get this?' "

Ron would not say.

But the tests done by the lab did not confirm that the Takysie Lake stones were lunar. They lacked certain elements that were found in all of the Lunar rocks.

So, when I look at the three pieces that I have, from 15 to 60 grams with their apparent fusion crusts, and weathering rind, I am perplexed.

Could these be a new, and very rare, and unique type of meteorite?

Could they be lunar?

Or maybe Martian?

We are finding that Mars is a very dynamic planet, and as such it could, and probably does produce rocks that are much more variable than those that we know to have come from that planet.

The only way to resolve the question of the Takysie Lake stones once and for all is to perhaps send a sample to the Labs that examine known Martian and Lunar meteorites and make more detailed comparisons.

Age dating has never been done on Takysie Lake stones.

Nor has neutron activation analysis.

Noble gas ratios.

These, and a whole host of tests could further resolve the question that surround these very odd rocks.

And more importantly-- are there more of them yet to be found, and what is their condition after an additional 30 years in the elements?

My feeling is--

Until they are written off as meteorites, I would not write them off yet.

(Either I just made a big fool of myself, or maybe someone knows some who can further study these enigmatic rocks)

Steve Schoner,
American Meteorite Survey

Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.
------- End of forwarded message -------

Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.
Received on Wed 17 Jan 2001 12:36:32 AM PST

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb