[meteorite-list] Chondrule NOT was...AD...

From: MexicoDoug <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Sep 9 06:09:29 2006
Message-ID: <00ec01c6d3f7$eabbd900$08cf5ec8_at_0019110394>

Elton, I'm sorry for doubting you with my typically bleeding heart. Another
possibility to consider vis a vis the observed magnetic properties ... IMO
a streak test on a ceramic surface like the inside of a roughed-up toilet
might give an indication whether it could be a relict sediment deformed
Scansoriopterygidae Pseudochondritic Coprolite. The paramagnetism and lower
oxidation state could easily be produced by ion-exchange induced
chromatography under a reducing methane overpressure, in a primitive,
partially digested Paleospinacia oleracea wild germplasm feedstock.

Dear New List Member, You have some very interesting finds. But let's be
honest - you are getting kicks out of making this stuff up, right? With all
due respect, this is not a conspiracy theory list, it is a list of a range
of people with a vested interest in the passionate documentation and
authentication of meteorites and meteoritical science. A few months ago you
were looking for meteorites in your Limedale "persistence" 30-60 million
year old limestone quarry and found what you called toys and games produced
by intelligent dinosaurs that didn't go extinct 65 million years ago, but
rather lived into the iron age a few thousand years ago. You even posted
pictures with claims as unscientific as they were incredible. All the power
to you, but I agree with Elton in asking kindly for a little more rigorous
study, please. You decided they weren't meteorites, for example, because
you thought a dinosaur made a sailboat out of a blob of X in which you found
fibers which you said was your theory's justification. Basically, no one
here has called the grease and bubbles in baloney chondrules and vugs
without some amount of objective, repeatable science. While it may or may
not be true that the grease bubbles in baloney are chondrules, you need to
know something about baloney and chondrules before representing them as
such. There are appropriate fora for this stuff, so I don't mean to imply
that you don't have interesting stuff you find in the sediments (you really
do!) since it does look cool. But you seem to have a history of making
claims of having meteorites for sale when there is no authentication.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction - you might be pleasantly surprised
about what you are pulling out of the quarry without even having to resort
to the oddball factor.
(see Ken Newton's great site to help Newbies which classifies you as a
repeat suspect purveyor of fake meteorite auctions:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ebaywrong/sajun06.html )
and plenty of chondru- claims when in fact no scientific determination has
been made except your weirdly but entertaining explanations.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3239&item=6639090736

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:DunIh9o5j8UJ:70.86.59.150/forum/thread1
96632/pg1+sdunklee72520&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6

  Those are my comments worth one cents. Sorry, Doug

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mr EMan" <mstreman53_at_yahoo.com>
To: New List Member
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Chondrule NOT wasAD - New Rare
EL3Paleo-Meteorite - NWA 2828


Dear New List Member
A few years ago I would be more "touchy feely" in
addressing newbie questions but tonight I am out of
any supportive way to tell you that you may have the
lexicon right but, I can see you haven't taken the
Level 1 Sky Cadet Meteoritical Exam Module that
we all must pass to learn the secret handshake.
Seriously, while I actually did see where you were
going more or less, you need revisit the literature.
You've comingled so many un-mingleable concepts you
almost reach the standard set by Boggy Creeksters. I
like the poster to defend the ideas they put forward.
There are perhaps too many invalid assertions but I'll
bite.

Why do you think this is a chondrule? It isn't
chondrules in meteorites which are magnetic--except
when armored and this isn't the case here.

Why do you think water would transport taenite or
kamacite without producing iron oxide?

While I appreciate your attempts to place this speck
into some theory of extraterrestrial origin... one has
to do more than speed read "Catch a Fallen Star". The
part you did get right is that a fossil meteorite is
likely to have undergone some mineral and or
structural change. In my oppinion a paleometeorite
may have these factors also but is more likely to have
relict meteorite characteristics. However, neither is
likely the case here.

Sorry,
Elton

--- New List Member wrote:

> .
> This would be a fossil chondrule I pulled off the
> magnet at work last night. I would believe a
> meteorite fossil would be not recognizable as a
> meteorite , other than shape OR if you follow the
> definition of fossilized it would be totally
> geologically altered
> There are two layers of iron slate at work in
> the core samples spaced 1/2 inch apart. I was
> considering the possibility it was from two asteroid
> falls ,till it occured to me it might be like
> chromotography, with water seperating the kamacite
> and taenite over time into two seperate layers of
> iron deposits. any thoughts on this? here is a link
> to the chondrule pic.
> Best reguards
> New List Member
>
>
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/sdunklee72520/detail?.dir=4ad5re2&.dnm=7076re2
.jpg


______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sat 09 Sep 2006 06:08:34 AM PDT