[meteorite-list] Chondrule NOT was...AD...
From: Dave Freeman mjwy <dfreeman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Sep 11 10:43:16 2006 Message-ID: <45046D0C.8070102_at_fascination.com> Dear Ken; Excellent and measured response is very good! Continue onward gentlemen! Best, Dave F. mjwy IMCA #3864 when nantans cry ken newton wrote: > MexicoDoug wrote: > >> 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. >> >> > Here is a very memorable one: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160007670467 > More?: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6638766864 > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6637178431 > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6637178825 > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6636738292 > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6630382972 > > Please note: As newbies, we all make mistakes and hopefully that is > the case here. To Steve's favor, he has told me he will not to list > any new suspect meteorites on ebay. > > Steve, the constructive criticism is offered to encourage and > enlighten, please apply accordingly. > > Best, > Ken Newton > IMCA #9632 > >> 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 >> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/attachments/20060910/75077a4f/attachment-0001.html Received on Sun 10 Sep 2006 03:52:44 PM PDT |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |