[meteorite-list] Amusing "Chicago Sun-Times" Article

From: joseph_town_at_att.net <joseph_town_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Jul 8 19:39:14 2006
Message-ID: <070820060454.15352.44AF3A710000E78000003BF821604666480299019BA1089F0A9C0106_at_att.net>

I think Mr. Stimpson should clean them all up and put together a much vaunted "puzzle stone".

Bill


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Jeff Kuyken" <info_at_meteorites.com.au>
> Another way to look at it is by past finds. How about Huckitta!? THE largest
> pallasite. Actually, the largest stony/iron I think. The main mass is 1411kg
> but it was found with another tonne of shale & fragments. Does this mean it
> really weighs ~2.4 tonnes??? Looks like the precedent may have already been
> set and Steve's Brenham record is safe for now! ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael L Blood
> To: Al Mitterling ; Geoff Notkin ; Meteorite List
> Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 6:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Amusing "Chicago Sun-Times" Article
>
>
> Hi Al and all,
> The fact that it "was" one of the largest masses
> of Brenham is irrelevant. It is not now one of the largest
> masses. Before it all entered the earth's atmosphere all Brenham
> might all have been one mass - or, in the asteroid belt it
> might all have been one mass, so, the fact that 1500 LBs might
> have been one mass in that hole at some time .... I just
> don't see how you can get close to comparing that to
> Steve's find - which IS the largest Brenham mass known.
> (AND is a spectacularly oriented specimen, to boot!)
> But then, I could be wrong, my wife tells me I am
> all the time.
> Best wishes, Michael
>
>
>
>
> on 7/7/06 11:13 AM, almitt at almitt_at_kconline.com wrote:
>
> > Hi Geoff and Listees,
> >
> > I think you have hit the nail on the head in regards to this find which
> > is in pieces. I am sure he wants this to be larger than Steve Arnolds
> > orientated specimen. How can we be sure that what is in the hole he has
> > found isn't other fragments from other finds? I guess if they can put
> > them all together then I'd be satisfied that it WAS one of the largest
> > masses of the Brenham fall. Other wise anyone can accumulate fragments
> > from this fall and claim the largest specimen.
> >
> > I have to go with the largest intact fragment as counting as the largest
> > main mass. Otherwise we might be subject to others gathering fragments
> > and claiming to have the main mass. An example of this is Long Island
> > (at the Field Museum) which is in may fragments and somewhat put
> > together and at one time was a larger specimen.
> >
> > Hope this doesn't get into a main mass discussion :-;
> >
> > --AL Mitterling
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> --
> The greater a person's sense of guilt, the greater his or her need to cast
> blame on others.
> Anon.
> --
> "Is our children learning?"
> "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."
> "More and more of our imports come from overseas."
> "The very act of spending money can be expensive."
> George W. Bush
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sat 08 Jul 2006 12:54:10 AM PDT