[meteorite-list] backwards evolution1

From: meteorites_at_space.com <meteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:46:24 2004
Message-ID: <20010514172501.2074.cpmta_at_c000.snv.cp.net>

Darryl, and all,

LOOK at the dates 1950's and '60's.

Post Apollo along with other much more recent research clearly points toward a terrestrial origin for ALL tektites from the known strewnfields.

(And just because the Australites have clear ablation feature DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT THEY CAME FROM THE MOON!

All that such indicates is that they entered the atmosphere at hypersonic speed (after re-entering the atmosphere after extremely catastrophic (Tunguska type?) explosions.

Steve Schoner AMS.


On Mon, 14 May 2001, "Darryl S. Futrell" wrote:

>
> PART 1
>
> THE ‘BACKWARDS’ EVOLUTION OF THE DEBATE ON TEKTITE ORIGIN
>
> Darryl S. Futrell
> In the mid-1960s, about half of the world’s ten or twenty most active
> tektite researchers favored a lunar origin for tektite glass. Whatever
> happened to most of the people that believed in a lunar origin?
> Scientific discussion in print on the origin of tektite glass by westerners
> began in 1787 when Joseph Mayer described moldavites as a glassy species of
> lava. The first mention of tektites other than moldavites was in 1844, when
> Charles Darwin described Australian tektites as obsidian.
> Between 1797 and the late 1950s, at least fifty other scientists had
> expressed their opinions. Several thought they were a type of meteorite, a
> few thought they were man-made glasses, and V. E. Barnes at first considered
> that they might be fulgurites. But most, early on, believed tektites were a
> type of terrestrial obsidian. R. D. M. Verbeek, in 1897, was the first to
> consider them to be obsidian ejected from lunar volcanos.
> In 1933, the influential British scientist L. J. Spencer, after studying
> glass melted from soils at two nickel-iron meteorite impact craters, decided
> tektites had been formed in the same manner. By the late 1950s, A. J.
> Cohen, F. Heide, Z. Kopal, and E. L. Krinov had come to agree with Spencer.
> H. C. Urey postulated tektites had been formed by the impact of a comet.
> But, had any of these scientists ever studied the very significant layered
> tektites before choosing the terrestrial impact melt theory?
> The only layered tektites (also called Muong Nong-type) in captivity and
> available to western world scientists for study during that time period were
> a number of specimens from the Indochina region. They were in the National
> Museum of Natural History in Paris. In 1935 A. Lacroix briefly described
> them, in French, in two papers; illustrating two very small specimens in
> one.
> Certainly a few, if not all of these six scientists had read one or perhaps
> both of these papers. I’ve learned that F. Heide did acquire two small
> samples of layered tektites from the Paris museum, and perhaps some of the
> others did also. Seeing only a few small samples, however, isn’t
> necessarily very enlightening. I can find no evidence in the literature or
> by my inquiries that any of the others, during this period of time, had any
> hands on experience with this type of tektite and its obvious volcanic
> structures.
> So, the terrestrial impact melt tektite theory bandwagon that so many dozens
> of other scientists have since climbed aboard, was set in motion by several
> scientists who apparently had little or no experience with this major and
> most significant type of tektite glass.
> The Dutch scientist G. H. R. von Koenigswald, who produced at least twelve
> tektite papers over a period of forty years beginning in 1935, wrote in 1975
> that he had seen small samples of layered tektites in Paris many years
> earlier, but had found them to be inconclusive. It wasn’t until about 1974,
> while looking at many larger layered tektites in a collection in Heidelberg,
> that he realized they must have had the same manner of origin as banded
> obsidian from Indonesia which he had collected in the 1930s. These
> observations resulted in his final tektite paper, in which he concluded
> tektites are volcanic products ejected from the moon.
> I acquired some small layered tektites from the Paris museum in 1967, plus
> several larger specimens a few years later direct from Thailand. However,
> it wasn’t until 1973, when I was able to visit a volcanic dome with obsidian
> outcrops in the Coso Range of California, that I first noticed the many very
> obvious structural similarities between layered tektites and banded
> obsidian, This led to several published descriptions of internal structures
> in layered tektites that could only have been formed during re-occurring
> volcanism.
> In the early 1960s, the terrestrial impact melt theory for the origin of
> tektites gained two additional supporters of note. One was S. R. Taylor,
> who became an associate editor of two of the most relevant journals:
> Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, in 1964, and Meteoritics, in 1988. I see
> he is still in that position in March, 2001 in the case of (now) Meteoritics
> and Planetary Science, and I don’t have a recent copy of the other journal
> available.
> The other was V. E. Barnes, who, late in 1960 collected a large number of
> layered tektites in Thailand and published several related papers. He chose
> to explain layered tektites as being terrestrial impact melts that flowed
> along gently inclined surfaces to collect in puddles in low places. Many
> others agree with this concept to this day. However, there are others,
> including myself, who have presented evidence that layered tektites, shown
> by several researchers to be welded accretions of microtektites, could not
> have flowed in any manner from one point to another. Numerous layers are
> only microns thick, and those aware of the behavior of molten glass know
> flow of such thin layers would be impossible! Besides, molten glass would
> adhere to, and/or pick up, everything that it would come in contact with if
> it had been subjected to any "flow"! I’ve examined thousands of layered
> tektites and found that most were slightly stretched while still soft, on a
> scale of mm to a few cm, and a number of others experienced slumping or
> compression with resulting folding on a cm scale. That is the total extent
> of any "flow"!
> Also, in the early 1960s, several other scientists, including NASA
> scientists Dean R. Chapman and John A. O’Keefe, proposed that tektites were
> impact melts ejected from the moon. By the mid-1960s the world’s top ten or
> twenty tektite researchers were more or less evenly divided on the two
> impact melt theories. However, by 1970, this balance began to change
> drastically, for a variety of reasons:
> 1. Everyone in the 1960s who believed tektites were lunar figured that they
> had to be ejected impact melts because a few of them contained some very
> small nickel-iron spherules which they felt had to be from impacting
> meteorites. This theory would have required most of the lunar surface to
> have a relatively high silica content, as do most tektites. This is because
> impact is a non-selective process. But then, almost all of the Apollo lunar
> samples turned out to have a lower silica content. So, by the early 1970s,
> the situation became rather untenable for the lunar impact people. It wasn’
> t determined until 1983 that these NiFe spherules in tektite glass were NOT
> a result of meteorite contamination, but were endogenous in origin. This
> eliminated the impact origin and ejection requirement, but by then, most of
> the "lunar" people, with the exception of O’Keefe, had moved on to other
> jobs and were working on other subjects. For instance, NASA researcher
> Dean Chapman, who by 1971 had published some thirteen papers demonstrating
> that the ablation evidence on Australian tektites requires a lunar origin,
> left NASA and became a professor of astronautics and aerodynamics at
> Stanford.
>
> PART 2 TK
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

___________________________________________________________________
Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at http://www.space.com.
Received on Mon 14 May 2001 01:25:01 PM PDT