[meteorite-list] Largest single Pallasite?

From: almitt <almitt_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Oct 26 19:43:17 2004
Message-ID: <417EE17D.F03B0EA4_at_kconline.com>

Hi Bernd and all,

bernd.pauli_at_paulinet.de wrote:

>John Evans' 10 tons of the Port Orford pallasite was a deliberate hoax.<
>His Port Orford specimen was actually a piece of the Imilac meteorite.<

I don't disagree that the pieces sent to the Smithsonian and Vienna were
Imilac, but I do think there is more than a little merit that it could also
NOT be a hoax. I have a college who has done extensive research on Port
Orford and there is as much mystery on some of the findings that have "put to
rest" this story as the story itself. Probably the biggest question is why a
copied manuscript was used to go back and trace Evan's routes. Certainly a
copied manuscript could have been mis-copied by accident or even intentional,
though it looks like Evan's wife may have done the copy but that hasn't been
proven yet.

I have posted in the past about the mystery (search under the Port Orford
Meteorite) and why I am not convinced that it really has been solved. The
person that has done the research is quite a historian and has been to
hundreds of locations digging up information that points to a number of very
interesting contradictions to the publicized official version. It may very
well be that another person might have been involved in causing some
confusion from the past. It is however up to the person doing the research to
publicize their findings. I am simply looking at this in a purely may be or
may not be but lets look at all the facts and not just what were told
fashion. That's the way science is done, yes? All my best!

--AL
Received on Tue 26 Oct 2004 07:45:01 PM PDT