[meteorite-list] Nut finds fake meteorite with fake technology!

From: Francis Graham <francisgraham_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <955769.84231.qm_at_web58701.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Hello Doug, Sterling, and list,
  Thanks for the info. I will pass on buying it,
though. It looks too "psionic". But yes, I agree Doug,
it may be a device that produces some sort of a field
effect which of course can be interpreted as a
positive reponse to anything. The key is in its
utility. For me, the combination of thin section
petromicroscopy ("optical mineralogy") and electric
arc spectrograph usually does everything I want, and
gives me some numbers as well. Psionic mineral
analysts are likely totally clueless as to the methods
and techniques of optical mineralogy and emission line
spectroscopy, which is why we should sort of spread
this much more reliable (i.e., greater than zero
reliability) technology around on a popular level.
"Oh, THAT's how you do it!" might be a welcome relief.
And, it has levels of skill. "What is that funny
yellow biaxial mineral with that big 2V?"
  There are only so many common minerals in
meteorites, anyway (But what's this new lunar gabbro
Mr Altman is offering??). Instead of $600 for a highly
questionable nonworkable device, it's possible for
someone who wants to analyze rocks for the minerals in
them to buy a petrographic microscope with that
amount:
www.oremicroscopes.com/microscopes/om0061000a.html
  Do people who would buy phoney rock and meteorite
analyzers know this?
  Science-oriented people must continue to fight the
uphill battle to get the word out as to what works.
Debunking what does not alone does not deter folks
from writing out those checks for useless or almost
useless devices.
  
>
> Is this G. Harry Stine my same childhood hero who
> wrote the Handbook of
> Model Rocketry that I checked out of my secondary
> school library and slept
> with for weeks, learning how to triangulate model
> rockets - same as we do
> for meteorites? I would love to get his take on
> this if he is still around
> as he was extremely well versed in the subject.

  Alas. G. Harry Stine passed away in 1997. He worked
on high altitude aerobees in the 1950's, rocket
motors, and was hailed as one of 50 "space pioneers"
by an Army silver medal. He started the hobby of model
rocketry (as you point out) but he also dabbled in
these oddball ideas, and believed in dowsing and
pyramid power. If dowsing doesn't work for you, he
said, it might be from a lack of talent. "After all,
not everyone can play the violin," he said.
  Thus we see he was a complex person. Most people
are. They are a mixture of things other people like
and things other people don't like. To see the whole
person as they really are, both must be apprehended.
To use a recent example from the exciting world of
television journalism, Spears can belt out a tune,
Lohan can act to make you cry, but don't give them car
keys after dark.
  Of course, the answer to his "violin" observation is
that not everyone can play "The flight of the
bumblebee" on the violin, but anyone who avoided
hockey in the pre-helmet days can be taught to play "A
shave and a haircut, two bits" on one. But no amount
of talent will make one a virtuoso on a machine that
does not work at all.
  There's a few random ideas here. I'll end my comment
on this thread.

Francis Graham




       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
Received on Thu 09 Aug 2007 02:16:03 PM PDT