[meteorite-list] Seeking Knowledge and Dealing with Meteorwrong Owners was Classification Q

From: Pete Pete <rsvp321_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue May 23 19:15:46 2006
Message-ID: <BAY104-F892D7DF7F0D08ACA458AAF89B0_at_phx.gbl>

Hi, EJ,

Respectfully, I think you failed to comprehend the content of the whole
thread!

No one here thinks that it is a meteorite.

Many, including yourself, have speculated what it may be.
Half of your post is guessing what it is from pictures.

Gary is going for the facts about the rock.

Rock, not meteorite.

Gary did not, nor did anyone else, post anything indicating that they
thought it was a meteorite.

We all know it's not a meteorite.

No one is convinced that it is a "valuable specimen", either.
You misinterpreted a hope that the rock >may< be a mineral that the guy can
sell for a few bucks honestly, instead of continuing his vision rant. That
will be up to him.
The point being made was closure to the guy's reference of the rock to
meteorites, one way or another - especially for this list.

The lengthy thread was due to so many, again including yourself, thinking
that what he is doing is a waste of time, and the rock should remain a
mystery for never-ending condescending by the list.
When is getting to the truth ever a waste of time?

The best way to increase your knowledge base is to deal with facts, not by
guessing.

Gary has taken the initiative and, at his own expense, will take samples to
"two reputable geologists" he knows; not for classification, as you are
under the impression, but for analysis only.
The facts will be posted.
You won't have to guess about it anymore.

Gary used the word "geologist".
He's not taking up valuable time from meteorite labs.
He is not having it tested as a possible meteorite, nor representing it as
one to anyone.
He is having it tested as a rock.
You may want to read his post again.

Don't you think what Gary is doing is scientific?
Isn't this list, after all, a science-based interest?
Aren't scientists supposed to be curious?
I'm surprised that Gary is being so criticised by some, instead of
commended!

Emails are very easily misinterpreted.
Please don't think that anything I typed was meant to be insulting or
sarcastic.
No gauntlet has been dropped.
We're having a discussion. I only wanted to set the record straight.

Cheers,
Pete

From: E J <jonee_at_epix.net>
To: gary_at_webbers.com
CC: Pete Pete <rsvp321_at_hotmail.com>, Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Seeking Knowledge and Dealing with Meteorwrong
Owners was Classification Q
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 03:25:22 -0400

Hello Gary, Pete, List

I've held back discussing this again as I am not the one on the "vision
quest". However, you've raised the issue of getting this classified aka
lab tested--at a meteorite lab amongst other things. You think he can
sell this for a sum and rebuild his failing ministry. He'll make more
in bake sales. For Pete's sake...and mine , please tell us why you
remain convinced that this is "valuable specimen" beyond a that of
landscaping boulder? "Interesting" doesn't equate to rare and valuable.
If it were, my collection would be worth millions. I also want to say I
loathe going out on a limb especially working with photographs--there
will always be someone near by with pruning shears and they have a long
memory for when you made a bad call.

Old Man's ambush of the whipper snapper:
There are 3 straight up reasons not requiring lab work that show this
can't be a Martian meteorite-- name one?

How to Beef Up your Knowledge Base:
In a nut shell, a way to improve your identification knowledge is to get
out and see all the rocks you can, So when one does come up that you
haven't seen before, you'll have a better basis to judge if it is rare
or if it is just interesting. Additionally: read, read, read. Google is
your friend. Get Norton's "Cambridge Encyclopedia of Meteorites" and
McSween's "Meteorites and their Parent Bodies" Read them three times.
Study your own collection, practice describing each specimen to your self.

Advice from the Good Ole Boy& Girl Network:
As far as seeking classification(?) Trust me on this , your credibility
is on the line every time you refer a specimen for "meteorite "
identification and that credibility slips down the toilet when you send
in an obvious meteorwrong. The way I see it is, you owe a duty to the
astro-geologist you contact to not waste his/her time. If you do a
field accessment and are unable to eliminate/ exclude an object as a
meteorite, only then do you start considering recommending it to a
meteorite lab and that only after you've floated it to your other
colleagues for their input. If you hold yourself out as a meteorite
expert then you better be able to back it up with several the reasons it
is not likely a meteorite or these meteorwrong owners will eat your
lunch and send you packing with your tail twixed your legs--Because you
did not confirm their rock as a meteorite--They obviously know more than
you do!. I re-learn the following lesson each day: You should not
interfere with another's right to remain ignorant. No matter how much
wishing, hoping, or praying it isn't going to turn this "water into
wine". No matter how sincere you believe this pastor is--his hidden
agenda is to keep this dream alive until he can explain it away and face
the reality that this was not a God send. I assure you it has nothing
to do with mineralogy. Some churches die on the vine for good reasons!
Check out Luke's Gospel?--it has been a while since I did any church
preaching. I feel for you but your Dutch Uncle would likely advise you
to get away from this situation as soon as you can extract yourself
honoring whatever commitments you've made. Read what Randy Korotev has
to say after dealing with 1000's of meteorwrong owners
<http://epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/meteorites/what_to_do.html>

The Quest
New Hampshire isn't a large state(nor is Vermont ) and seems you would
have scoured the state by now if not in person via google. Google the
Chlorite mineral group (esp. Clinochlore) and the rock types
greenschist , blueschist, and syenite. (See the links way below) I only
have state for location, cursory description and photos(needing a
reference object--coin, ruler, etc.) which you've taken down to go on.

The new photo makes me go back to Actenolite-Tremolite as I can see
large crystals and to me this looks like other occurrences I have seen.
The "flaky" granules point to Clinochlore or any of several Chlorite
group minerals. I think this rock is not homogeneous but a mix of
parents because Chlorite and Tremolite aren't usually associated but
they are found in adjacent deposits. If just going by casual
appearances I would note that a cut face of Bilinga also shows some
crystal faces as so do some Eucrites.

You must have wondered where the depressions in the Vision rock came
from if not "regmaglypts". Well remember the furry over human foot
prints found inside dinosaur foot prints in soft shale in Texas by some
"Creation"(sic) Scientists? When conventional scientist went to the
location they found the heals of the dinosaur tracks had been doctored
to human shape during "clean out". The Creationists were cleaning out
the tracks until their foot would fit in the depression. Well... you
see where this is going.

Options:

1. Port this over to the Rockhound's List at Drizzle.com. There are
world class mineralogist there and this is their forte. Avoid telling
them what you think it is and ask them what it might be based on
location and physical appearance. To treat this objectively we really
must get this discussion uncoupled from "meteorite" for the time
being. Talk to these folks:
<http://groups.msn.com/NewHampshireRocks/_whatsnew.msnw>.

2. Contact John Creasy below and see where he refers you-- Or the NH
state geologist

3. The Pegmatie Workshop is meeting this soon in Maine at Poland Mining
Camp <http://homepage.mac.com/rasprague/PegShop/> I don't think this is
a real pegmatite but these folks spent a lot of time with New England
rocks and might know where it comes from.

4. If you want to pay for it at around $50+ a pop contact Excalibur
Minerals in Peekskill, NY.
<http://www.excaliburmineral.com/analysis.htm> for a non destructive
test which may reveal mineral compositions.

I truly hope this helps and you can run this issue to ground. If you
want to believe I am full of hot air that is your choice and no foul.
However when you keep coming to the list--where there is probably
200-300 man/woman years of meteorite expertise, hinting in the back of
your mind that you yourself are holding out hope that this is a
meteorite then this is way off the radar. We all learned by doing and
by studying but how many miles must you travel down a dead end road do
you have to go to prove it is a dead end like the last 15 signs said?

Sincerely,
Elton

The rest is specifics on NH rocks and on metamorphism so only read if
you are curious.

You have already identified this as three different materials, I've
given you 2 other possibilities to explore. NH is replete with a
intermingled sets of rocks of distinct origins and the parent material
has been repeatedly exposed to mountain building events
<http://abacus.bates.edu/acad/depts/geology/jcreasy.WM.html>. The
remains of a Volcanic Island Arc run down the middle of the state.
Google tells me that John Creasy is listed as a geology professor who
researched NH rocks and wrote the White Mountain Report in the link
above<http://abacus.bates.edu/acad/depts/geology/jcreasy.html> perhaps
emailing him , he might be able to advise you further.

Earlier I wrote that this had an origin as an igneous rock with some
degree of metamorphism which I couldn't from the photos. Well I back
off this because Tremolite can also occur in advanced metamorphs of
marble. What I thought was a talc trend is likely Chlorite/Clinochlore.
And I said this was Pyroxenes and Tremolite is in the Amphibole The rock
does not appear homogeneous which would make me want to look at the
possibility that this was a complicated intermingling of marble country
rock and a pegmatite-- owing to an absence of Biotite see syenite.
These stem from Aluminum depleted granitoids so they will be almost
devoid of mica (Biotite, Muscovite). Chlorite is not related to the
true micas but it is is in the mica group owing to its propensity to flake.

The history of this rock is NOT rare but I believe it is complex and it
would take 24 chapters of writing to explain all the nuances. So
consider taking the Lift's Notes Version of this survey on metamorphics
<http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/MetaRx/Metakeys.html>

Metamorphism theory is a complex but specific sequence of change based
on to temperature and pressure of burial. The sequence of succession in
is pretty straight forward but the type rock one ends up with depends on
the parent rock and here we have a combination of carbonates/marble,
intrusive igneous and extrusive igneous. Certain index minerals will
occur result in a succession from as certain combinations from certain
parent rock types. NH has intrusive igneous massifs as found in
plutonics in Granite domes and pegmatite intrusions, extrusives as
basalts, tuft, etc from the island arch's--all with several hundreds of
million years for water to work its changes. At the boundary of marble
and pegmatite there will be a mix of new minerals owing to the marble
being reheated and the pegmatite chilled.
Received on Tue 23 May 2006 02:42:32 PM PDT