[meteorite-list] (no subject)

From: Michael Farmer <farmerm_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:41 2004
Message-ID: <00a501c19723$56a6b520$44d00140_at_computer>

Just give up guys, this guy "knows" it is a meteorite, I have dealt with so
many like this. It is useless arguing with them. I just tell them that I
amke my living from meteorites, if he had one I would be begging to buy it
from him, I doubt many of us are trying to buy this one.
Mike Farmer
----- Original Message -----
From: "M Yousef" <diamondmeteor_at_hotmail.com>
To: <Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Cc: <mlblood_at_home.com>; <brearley@unm.edu>; <M.Grady@nhm.ac.uk>;
<kring_at_gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu>; <Gero.Kurat@univie.ac.at>;
<mccoy.tim_at_nmnh.si.edu>; <news@meteorite.com>; <prinz@amnh.org>;
<aerubin_at_ucla.edu>; <escott@kahana.pgd.hawaii.edu>; <meteor@comp.uark.edu>;
<stoffler_at_museum.hu-berlin.de>; <weberd@mail.uni-muenster.de>;
<meteor_at_mnhn.fr>; <michael.e.zolensky@jsc.nasa.gov>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 9:15 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] (no subject)


> Dear Rob, and All;
> I really thank you very much for your time in replying to my posts. I
really
> apreciate it.
> Maybe you left me no choice to discuss and explain my points why I am
> claiming it is a meteorite, but before I back off I will give it another
> final try. The reason is that I am now more sure and certian it is, than
you
> are sure and certian it is not. Please bear with me and read this maybe
long
> and boring email, and I promise will not bother you after that.
>
> For me, with my little expertise, it is very simple: those rocks are
igneous
> and they are NOT volcanic so they must be meteorites. By the first visit
to
> the region anyone can easily judge that there is no "fresh" volcano there,
> and even if you want to consider the other old and weathered volcanic
> mountains in the region you would certainly decide those rocks do not
belong
> to them at all. The rocks that I found, are all placed at the surface of
> what was a sea or a river before. You can see the rock from as far as 100m
> because it is so different from the surroundings. There is no volcano that
> throws a few rocks and retire.
> The rocks are distributed in an almost half circle of a few km's diameter.
> >From the beginning I could anticipate where to find more rocks. This
circle
> is distinct by a rim of mountains of more than a 100m high. The rocks of
> those montains all point to the centre of the circle. Some BIG stones have
> been thrown away of the rim in a way not even those who built the piramids
> would be able to move them. The distribution of the stones and rocks off
the
> rim all clearly suggest how they have been carried away by a huge
explosion.
> You can even calculate the shock energy with good precision by measuring
the
> average mass of stones in relation to their distances from the rim. There
> are lots of other physical, chemical and geological evidences of a big
> crater. If this was my field of study or interest I would not take so long
> to decide that I have got a huge meteorite crater.
> For me this is really enough, but surely I am trying to do all possible
> tests to confirm that.
>
> Now, I may agree with you; no quartz have been found in meteorites before
> (this is not correct by the way, see reference bellow), no fossils could
> come down with a meteor, no white meteorites, meteorites do not stick and
> melt into local rocks,,,, but with all these NOs I have got a meteorite!!!
> So it must be something new, and very interesting.
>
> But now I will tell you why I was amazed how so many of you quickly gave
me
> a negative reply. Sorry Rob, you did not misread me, and I did not mean to
> praise you for your skill in identifying meteorites. But it seems that all
> those who replied may have only "practical" experience with meteorites, or
> they did not take what I said or what I put in the site seriously; if they
> read it at all. I dont blame though, but can anyone tell me:
> * How could quartz crystals form on virtually all sides of a stone, and
only
> at the surface?
> * How could quartz crystals form on a fossil, from all sides too?
> * How did those thumprints appear on all sides of this white stone in the
> gallery?
> * How this white stone (must be calcium something) could be so compact and
> hard that it almost scratches glass?
> * Did you see the last two pictures (the inside and outside of one sample)
> and how the signs of a BIG shock clearly present that a child could tell?
> * You would not believe me if I say that even my little boy (three years
> old, AbdulAllah, who brought me the first rock when we were on a picnic)
> when he saw the iron rock that is stuck to the local rock he literally
asked
> me: why those two rocks are attached together?
> * Did you see the fusion crust in some samples?
> * I told you that most of the rocks are magnetic and very compact.
> SO WHAT ON EARTH YOU NEED MORE THAN THAT TO AT LEAST CALSSIFY THESE AS
> METEOWRONGS to give them little attention and study?
>
> If anything of what I said above appeals to you, I would welcome any help
> and would be happy to provide samples for serious scientists and
researchers
> in order to identify this METEORITE and to solve the fossil(s) riddle.
>
> Finally, please forgive me if I got little angry, but I got some bad
replies
> that I do not deserve. However I repeat my thanks and appreciation to
those
> who spent time to write good, though negative, replies.
>
> Regards
>
> Mohamed
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Detection of quartz in chondrites
> Authors: Semenenko, V. P.; Melnikov, V. S.
> Affiliation: AB(Akademiia Nauk Ukrainskoi SSR, Institut Geokhimii i
Fiziki
> Mineralov, Kiev, Ukrainian SSR)
> Journal: In: Space environment and the earth. (A78-38378 16-91) Kiev,
> Izdatel'stvo Naukova Dumka, 1977, p. 96-100. In Russian.
> =========================================================================
>
>
>
>
>
> In Reply TO:
> ---------------------------------------
>
> As I said:
> > > It could not be anything terrestrial.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matson, Robert" <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_saic.com>
> To: <diamondmeteor_at_hotmail.com>; <meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:10 AM
> Subject: Catching up on Met-Central
>
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >Been slurping my Sunday coffee and catching up on weekend
> >email -- mostly posts to Meteorite Central. I wish to respond
> >to several posts, but I want to start with the most bizarre
> >one first.
> >
> >I enjoy obscure humor as much as the next guy/gal, but I have
> >to admit that Michael Casper's latest post about his eBay
> >auction has me completely stumped. Either it is a very
> >private inside joke (which I'm supposing is lost on most
> >everyone here), or perhaps Michael just enjoys being
> >eccentric and taunting us mortals. In either case, I do
> >look forward to his 4-sigma posts -- their apparent randomness
> >(both in content and in timing) suggests extreme intelligence,
> >and I'm hoping that with perseverance I'll eventually "get it."
> >
> >Moving on to Mohamed Yousef's posts:
> >
> > > I was amazed how so many of you quickley gave me a negative
> > > reply.
> >
> >Don't forget the likelihood of a language barrier here, folks.
> >Perhaps we're misreading the tone of this statement. It could
> >simply be high praise for our skill in so quickly identifying
> >a non-meteorite! ;-) (I hesitate to call it a "meteorwrong",
> >a term I prefer to reserve for rocks which at least superficially
> >resemble meteorites in one or more features.) But in all
> >seriousness, I would like to offer a more constructive reply.
> >
> > > ... maybe I concentrated on the crystals and left out whole
> > > samples which looks more like what is avaialable in meteorite
> > > sites.
> >
> >Agreed. First word of advice, Mohamed: go through all your
> >various samples, identify any with quartz crystals, and set
> >them aside. Quartz (such as what appears in the majority of
> >your on-line images) is a show-stopper.
> >
> > > With all the negative replies I got so far, I STILL INSIST it
> > > is a meteorite.
> >
> >Because?
> >
> > > It could not be anything terrestrial.
> >
> >Because?
> >
> > > Although I am not an expert in the field ...
> >
> >Since you freely admit this, why are you loathe to accept
> >the opinions of multiple independent people who are?
> >
> > > ... but I am a physicist, PhD student in Cosmology ...
> >
> >All well and good, but it sounds like geology and meteoritics
> >are not your fields of expertise. Just as there are probably
> >few geologists who know much about Feynman diagrams or the
> >Chandrasekhar limit, a physicist or cosmologist probably has
> >little need for understanding mineralogy or petrology.
> >
> > > ... during the last few months I visited almost all sites
> > > about meteorites and read a few books.
> >
> >We applaud your curiosity in a subject outside your primary
> >field(s) of interest. The more you read on the subject, the
> >more you will learn.
> >
> > > I tried all pre-tests on these rocks and they passed.
> >
> >I see a reference to magnetism on your pages, so that's
> >certainly an example of a good test (but mind you, not a
> >requirement for being a real meteorite). However, you haven't
> >enumerated all your tests, and clearly they are incomplete
> >if quartz-containing rocks are "passing".
> >
> > > Please also try to solve with me the fossil riddle; I know
> > > it is not possible to have such fossils in a meteorite but
> > > this is what I found.
> >
> >Your question is asked and answered in the same sentence.
> >You "know it is not possible to have such fossils in a
> >meteorite". It's as simple as that -- any rocks with
> >terrestrial fossils have been on the earth for a very
> >long time indeed. Few meteorites last longer than a
> >few tens of thousands of years in the harsh earth
> >environment.
> >
> >Try not to be discouraged that your first candidate meteorites
> >are in fact terrestrial. As you learn more, you will refine
> >your identification criteria, and fewer and fewer candidates
> >will meet those criteria. With enough time, knowledge and
> >patience, you will find your first meteorite, and you will
> >probably recognize it the instant you see it.
> >
> >Moving on to Robert Beauford's post, asking for help on some
> >questions related to fall rates:
> >
> > > What proportion of visible meteors, or shooting stars, results
> > > in a meteorite being left on the ground? Would it be accurate
> > > to say far less than 1 in 10000(??)
> >
> >I think that's in the ballpark. Certainly less than 1 in 2000.
> >Thanks to meteor showers like the Leonids, Perseids, Geminids
> >and so forth, most visible meteors are associated with cometary
> >dust and debris smaller than the size of a pea. There must be
> >some active meteor observers on this list -- just ask them what
> >fraction of their observations produced meteors brighter than
> >magnitude -9 (probably a reasonable lower-limit for a meteorite-
> >producing event). I've seen perhaps 4 in my life (one of which
> >back on August 31, 1984, definitely produced multiple meteorites),
> >versus more than 10,000 regular meteors.
> >
> > > 1 object over 10 grams falls per (how many square miles) per
> > > year.
> >
> >My best estimate, based on recoveries in California and Nevada
> >is around 5000 square miles. This assumes you count meteorites
> >from the same fall only ONCE (even though most falls produce many
> >individuals, each over 10 grams.) Even so, 5000 square miles is
> >probably an upper limit. It could quite easily be half this.
> >
> > > An object over 1 kilo (2.2 lbs) might fall in a given 1 square
> > > mile piece of land only once in every (how many) years?
> >
> >Here, there are some theoretical, exponential scaling laws you
> >can use to estimate comparative fall rates between stones above
> >10 grams and stones above 1000 grams. I'm sure it's at least
> >a 20:1 ratio (i.e. at least 100,000 square miles). Hopefully
> >someone on the list can provide more definitive data.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Rob
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
Received on Sun 06 Jan 2002 09:30:45 PM PST