[meteorite-list] CCNet Excerpts: Tektites, Plant Burning and Stone tools
From: meteorites_at_space.com <meteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:46:22 2004
On Thu, 10 May 2001, "Darryl S. Futrell" wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meteorites_at_space.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: jonee_at_epix.net <email@example.com>
> Cc: Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] CCNet Excerpts: Tektites, Plant Burning and
> Stone tools
> I count about 27 references claimed to support the terrestrial origin of
> tektites. I could come up with about 1,000 pro-terrestrial impact
> references, if I went back a few decades. But it would be a total waste of
> time. All it demonstrates is what a trap the majority dogma can become when
> so many people climb aboard! Sort of like a black hole. Probably every
> finding presented in those references can also be explained in the context
> of a lunar volcanic origin. If there are any that aren't yet quite
> explainable, they will probably have to wait for sample collecting at sites
> such as the Aristarchus Plateau and Tycho.
> Funny, but at least two of those 27 references you list are actually
> E. C. T. Chao's USGS Bulletin 2050 is pro-lunar. And that's not the half of
> it. I gather he had that Bulletin published because he had a problem
> getting his full Barringer Medal Acceptance paper text published in
> Meteoritics (1993 March, V 28, pg 31 - only two pgs and no references!
> Compare that with the Barringer Acceptance paper by V. E. Barnes in Sept
> 1990 Meteoritics - over 9 pgs and 140 references!)
> Chao listed about 60 references in his Bulletin. For the majority, who
> claim a terrestrial origin, he suggested they read several of Dean Chapman
> et al.'s papers, and listed them in the references.
> You also include Povenmire et al.'s LPSC abstract. What's pro-terrestrial
> about that? I have the CDrom for that 1999 meeting, but it won't play in my
> computer. However, I can tell you that those Chinese sites listed all fall
> within Dean Chapman's Tycho tektite distribution path. So, if anything,
> this abstract supports a lunar origin.
ALL strewnfield distributions STRONGLY support terrestrial impact origin-- NOT LUNAR.
If lunar they would have distributions that would be more uniform.
And there is the problem of the stretch forms...
And the layered forms...
Trace elements that do not come even close to what if found in all of the lunar samples (including the lunar meteorites)...
And more importantly with all of the overwhelming evidence---
Lunar origin expectations for the tektites died with the Apollo missions-- and I hate to say it, but Lunar origin diehards for tektites are anachronists... like those who think....
better not go there....
Steve Schoner, AMS
> ">On Mon, 23 April 2001, "E.L. Jones" wrote:"
Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.
Received on Fri 11 May 2001 12:00:29 AM PDT