[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