[meteorite-list] Fwd: M-List

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

From: Impactika_at_aol.com <Impactika_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:01:32 2004
Message-ID: <18d.8e358d9.2a342158_at_aol.com>

--part1_18d.8e358d9.2a342158_boundary
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_18d.8e358d9.2a342158_alt_boundary"

--part1_18d.8e358d9.2a342158_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Members,

I have been asked to post this message to the MeteoriteCentral List by Ray
DeRusse of Boggy Creek Collection Meteorites, with the following comment:

I have followed and learned much from your postings and group, but there is
some elements of your group (individuals) who could benefit from maintaining
an open mind. The reason I say this is because we have (recently) released
some information to the international community (only) about our discoveries
that has them gasping and at the same time praising our work. I really would
like to see our domestic critics (from the list), who have invested so much
of their time and lives creating a niche in meteoritics not look foolish in
front of the world by clinging to static notions while sacrificing progress
and knowledge.

Thank you
S. Ray DeRusse
www.bccmeteorites.com

--part1_18d.8e358d9.2a342158_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>Hello Members,
 
 I have been asked to post this message to the MeteoriteCentral List by Ray DeRusse of Boggy Creek Collection Meteorites, with the following comment:
 
 
 
 I have followed and learned much from your postings and group, but there is some elements of your group (individuals) who could benefit from maintaining an open mind. The reason I say this is because we have (recently) released some information to the international community (only) about our discoveries that has them gasping and at the same time praising our work. I really would like to see our domestic critics (from the list), who have invested so much of their time and lives creating a niche in meteoritics not look foolish in front of the world by clinging to static notions while sacrificing progress and knowledge.
 
 Thank you
 S. Ray DeRusse
 www.bccmeteorites.com</HTML>

--part1_18d.8e358d9.2a342158_alt_boundary--

--part1_18d.8e358d9.2a342158_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: <BCCmtrites_at_aol.com>
From: BCCmtrites_at_aol.com
Full-name: BCCmtrites
Message-ID: <151.f060ad4.2a33f58f_at_aol.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 20:04:31 EDT
Subject: M-List
To: Impactika_at_aol.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part2_18d.8e358d9.2a33f58f_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10512

--part2_18d.8e358d9.2a33f58f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This email is sent to you in response to several issues raised in the
Meteorite_list in which you may have participated regarding our sample.
Thank you. S. Ray DeRusse

Dear Mr. Treiman:

In a posting on the Meteorite-List regarding BCC9601 you indicated it looked
like a granidiorite in thin section. If I may I would like to address that
and some other
Granodiorite is composed of the following;

Essentials; quartz, plagioclase, (oligoclase-andesine, often zoned),
potassic feldspar, biotite and hornblende.
Accessories; magnetite, ilmenite, apatite, titanite, allanite, and
zircon.
Accidentals; pyroxene and muscovite mica.

The newest pattern for BCC9601 is as follows;

alpha-quartz, cristoblite 29%
K-feldspar 15%
Plagioclase 33% Ab-An
Pyroxene 17%
Ilmenite 2%
Phlogopite 4%
_____________________________________________________________________
Total 100%

We found the essential and accessory mineral list for any intrusive
material or metamorphic material from earth did not match the composition of
our sample, either by weigth percent or mineral list. The obvious reason is
that the stability field for the various phases in BCC9601 could only exist
with the givens, (what was there combined with the environmental conditions).
A very high temperature in a depleted environment can only do so much for
the products of a differentiated crustal sample. As far as the
photomicrographs, if you need help interpreting these I will do the best I
can to help you, but I am sure you are better at this than I am. (We are very
busy with other important material and have little time to work on the
existing photmicrographic analysis). We will be posting other self
explanatory lab materials on this sample so that it can be used by the public
for your enjoyment and education. If you would be so kind as to pass this
information along to your other interested "group" members of the list,
perhaps it will help avoid further confusion. While I have your attention I
would like to ask you to ask yourself these questions.

1) If our samples were not authentic, why would so many Scientists risk
their careers by repeatedly attempting to steal the samples? Does that make
any sense to you? There is tons of granitoid material out there, why would
someone try to steal our small piece of granite? That makes no sense does
it?

2) Do you think that someone trying to perpetuate a scam on the Internet is
going to show their picture, fax number, mailing and residence address?

3) Don't you think that if a scam was brewing here, law enforcement wouldn't
have been knocking on our door by now? Why do you think that law enforcement
agencies have not called us? Because the person making the complaint
(including the State ) has a burden of proof to show that a crime is being
commited or is emminent. And if law enforcement says to the Complainant,
guess what
Mr. DeRusse showed us the proof and he is correct and his lab people are
correct. This would open the closet doors to people in high places and they
don't want to take that risk, do they? I would not take it either Mr.
Treiman.

You know something really strange about this whole thing, I seem to have
gotten negative reactions from you guys on the list (only) about the lunar
sample, while the stellar and cometary pieces went untouched by criticism.
When you look
at the proximity of the Moon to the Earth versus a star, it seems that a
lunar sample would be less far fetched than a stellar grain mass which can be
and is infinitely much farther away and less likely to exchange material with
our planet. By
the way those are absolutely beautiful under the microscope.

Thank you for your kind attention. And if you and the people on the list are
truly interested in planetary science, then I am sure they would like to see
the information above comparing BCC9601 with the granodiorite material you
mentioned on March 18, 2002. Well, enough about me, I hope the above
explanation helps you in some way, it is simple direct and to the point.

S. Ray DeRusse
www.bccmeteorites.com

--part2_18d.8e358d9.2a33f58f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>This email is sent to you in response to several issues raised in the Meteorite_list in which you may have participated regarding our sample. 
Thank you. S. Ray DeRusse 
 
 
Dear Mr. Treiman: 
 
In a posting on the Meteorite-List regarding BCC9601 you indicated it looked 
like a granidiorite in thin section. If I may I would like to address that and some other 
Granodiorite is composed of the following; 
 
Essentials;   quartz, plagioclase, (oligoclase-andesine, often zoned), 
potassic feldspar, biotite and hornblende. 
Accessories;     magnetite, ilmenite, apatite, titanite, allanite, and zircon. 
Accidentals; pyroxene and muscovite mica. 
 
The newest pattern for BCC9601 is as follows; 
 
alpha-quartz, cristoblite     29% 
K-feldspar                        15% 
Plagioclase                      33% Ab-An 
Pyroxene                         17% 
Ilmenite                             2% 
Phlogopite                         4% 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
Total                              100% 
 
       We found the essential and accessory mineral list for any intrusive 
material or metamorphic material from earth did not match the composition of 
our sample, either by weigth percent or mineral list. The obvious reason is 
that the stability field for the various phases in BCC9601 could only exist 
with the givens, (what was there combined with the environmental conditions). A very high temperature  in a depleted environment can only do so much for the products of a differentiated crustal sample. As far as the photomicrographs, if you need help interpreting these I will do the best I can to help you, but I am sure you are better at this than I am. (We are very busy with other important material and have little time to work on the existing photmicrographic analysis). We will be posting other self explanatory lab materials on this sample so that it can be used by the public for your enjoyment and education. If you would be so kind as to pass this information along to your other interested "group" members of the list, perhaps it will help avoid further confusion. While I have your attention I would like to ask you to ask yourself these questions. 
 
1) If our samples were not authentic, why would so many Scientists risk 
their careers by repeatedly attempting to steal the samples? Does that make 
any sense to you? There is tons of granitoid material out there, why would 
someone try to steal our small piece of granite? That makes no sense does 
it? 
 
2) Do you think that someone trying to perpetuate a scam on the Internet is 
going to show their picture, fax number, mailing and residence address? 
 
3) Don't you think that if a scam was brewing here, law enforcement wouldn't 
have been knocking on our door by now? Why do you think that law enforcement 
agencies have not called us? Because the person making the complaint (including the State ) has a burden of proof to show that a crime is being commited or is emminent. And if law enforcement says to the Complainant, guess what 
Mr. DeRusse showed us the proof and he is correct and his lab people are 
correct. This would open the closet doors to people in high places and they 
don't want to take that risk, do they? I would not take it either Mr. Treiman. 
 
You know something really strange about this whole thing, I seem to have 
gotten negative reactions from you guys on the list (only) about the lunar sample, while the stellar and cometary pieces went untouched by criticism. When you look 
at the proximity of the Moon to the Earth versus a star, it seems that a 
lunar sample would be less far fetched than a stellar grain mass which can be and is infinitely much farther away and less likely to exchange material with our planet. By 
the way those are absolutely beautiful under the microscope. 
 
Thank you for your kind attention. And if you and the people on the list are truly interested in planetary science, then I am sure they would like to see the information above comparing BCC9601 with the granodiorite material you mentioned on March 18, 2002. Well, enough about me, I hope the above explanation helps you in some way, it is simple direct and to the point.  
 
S. Ray DeRusse 
www.bccmeteorites.com 
 
</HTML>
--part2_18d.8e358d9.2a33f58f_boundary--

--part1_18d.8e358d9.2a342158_boundary--
Received on Sat 08 Jun 2002 11:11:20 PM PDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Rosemary Hackney: "[meteorite-list] Fwd: M-List"
Previous message: Ron Baalke: "[meteorite-list] The Odin Satellite Detects H2-18O In Comet C/2002 C1 (Ikeya-Zhang)"
Next in thread: Rosemary Hackney: "[meteorite-list] Fwd: M-List"
Reply: Rosemary Hackney: "[meteorite-list] Fwd: M-List"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

StumbleUpon

del.icio.us

Yahoo MyWeb