[meteorite-list] ill need more

From: Michael L Blood <mlblood_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:57:05 -0800
Message-ID: <C2067341.334B8%mlblood_at_cox.net>

Hi Sterling,
        While I agree with pretty much all you have to say, I
do not agree with what you seem to imply: that we should
accept as fact every reported fall. Arguments against this
are at least as strong as the argument to accept none of them.
        For instance, look at some of the "reported" falls and
finds we see today. We have one crack pot threatening to
sue half the dealers and institutions in the world for not
"recognizing" the multiple lunar and Martian meteorites
he has found in his back yard - we have several reports
a year of spurious falls and I, personally, have had countless
people show up at my front door with a "meteorite" their
uncle, grandpa or father "saw" fall in 1957 or the like.
        It is an unfortunate dilemma - as obviously at least
some of these old falls are valid.
        Best wishes, Michael

on 2/24/07 8:44 PM, Sterling K. Webb at sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net wrote:

> Hi, Michael, Jeffrey, List
>
> Michael, as you well know, if the stone is
> not preserved, conserved, abducted by a museum,
> university, or government agency, examined by
> a geologist, mineralogist, scholar, savant, published,
> mentioned, noted, or abstracted, and then, in more
> scientific times, cut, sectioned, analyzed, poked in
> the noble gases and asked to cough --- it does not
> exist.
>
> There is no "meteorite" named ZVEZVAN, no
> entries in the Catalogue, no specimens, no slices,
> no nothing. Just an article in the NYTimes and one
> dead wedding guest. Not much, unless the wedding
> guest mattered to you. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
> What? Slow news day in Zvezvan?
>
> There are innumerable historical accounts of
> "fabulous" events for which at the time there was
> no "rational" explanation that are perfectly and
> consistently what would be expected from
> a meteorite that are presently blythely dismissed
> as being "without proof."
>
> There is a well-known case of a Franciscan monk
> of Milan being killed by a meteorite striking him in the
> leg (17th century). This is a much disputed account
> despite a large number of witness and perfectly consistent
> details. It was called a "celestial stoning," the notion of
> meteorites being unknown at the time, and was widely
> reported and well attested, but is widely regarded by the
> "experts" of today as the report of the ignorant and
> the credulous.
>
> Then, in 1985, a historian quite accidentally discovered
> a lengthy account written by the physician who attempted
> to save the monk's life (and failed). The "autopsy report"
> is clear: the man's thigh was punctured side-to-side by a
> blocky piece of heavy dark stone larger than a bullet; the
> wound would have been survivable except that the "stone"
> severed the femoral artery and the victim bled out.
>
> Those 17th century guys just didn't realize that without
> a video tape of the whole thing, nobody was ever going to
> believe them! No guest shot on Oprah for them... But,
> frankly, to dismiss entirely these accounts for which there
> is no inherent clause for dismissal as "the report of the
> ignorant and the credulous" is... What's the word? Oh,
> yes: ignorant and credulous. But I'm just re-iterating in a
> minor way the discussion in Chap. 13 of Lewis book.
> Go read that, an excellent book on meteorites.
>
> Jeffrey, if you have archival access to the NYT, you
> might try for March 11, 1897 (1:4) account of a meteorite
> whose fragments pierced walls, killed one horse, injured
> another, and knocked out cold a man named David
> Leisure, in New Martinsville, West Virginia, apparently
> an explosive air-burst. (That's all I have, and that may
> have been all that was in the Times.)
>
> As for the "glowing hot" references in such accounts,
> that is the result of one of the great fallacies of human
> perception and need not invalidate an account. Ascribing
> heat to meteorites is akin to "seeing" lightening as red.
>
> Before 1800, in the many hundreds of descriptions
> of lightening to be found in the literatures of every culture
> on the planet, lightening is described as being red in color.
> I accumulated 700 references to the color of lightening
> prior to the late 18th century and found only one reference
> to "blue" lightening; ALL others were red. Since the early
> 19th century, lightening is always described as "blue,
> blue-white, bluish white." Why? Better eyesight nowadays?
>
> No. Before 1800, everyone "knew" lightening was "fire"
> from heaven, and "fire" is red. Now, everyone "knows"
> that lightening is electrical, a gigantic atmospheric spark,
> and "electricity" is "blue" (or blue-white). Any (and every)
> fool knows that. Human beings DO NOT SEE what's in
> front of them; they DO SEE what they "know" to be true.
> They "know" meteorites are fiery objects, so they're "hot."
> Reality has nothing to do with it.
>
> A great many genuine in-the-book historical falls come
> with witness descriptions of "hot rocks." Whether there
> are ever any real "hot rocks" is impossible to determine
> because they're going to be reported as hot whether they
> were or not.
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael L Blood" <mlblood at cox.net>
> To: "Jeffrey Shallit" <elvis at graceland.math.uwaterloo.ca>; "Meteorite List"
> <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>; <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
> Cc: <shallit at graceland.math.uwaterloo.ca>
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 7:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] ill need more
>
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
> Thanks!
> However, I was wondering what the NAME of this meteorite is....
> "Zvezvan" is not listed in Meteorites A to Z.
> Michael
>
>
> on 2/24/07 5:26 PM, Jeffrey Shallit at elvis at graceland.math.uwaterloo.ca
> wrote:
>
>> Ask and ye shall receive:
>>
>> "Little thing like a meteor fails to discourage bride"
>> New York Times
>> December 8 1929
>> p. E1
>>
>> Special correspondence of the New York Times
>>
>> Belgrade, Nov. 20. - The heavens "blessed" a bride in unwonted
>> and unwelcome form in the village of Zvezvan today. As the wedding
>> party was nearing the church a meteor fell into one of the carriages
>> immediately in front of that in which the bride was seated.
>>
>> One of the wedding guests, a man, was killed, the woman sitting
>> opposite him was badly injured and the bride fainted. The crowd
>> scattered in panic, but after a brief delay the marriage was
>> duly solemnized.
>>
>> The meteor, which was glowing hot, measured forty centimeters in
>> diameter.
>>
>
> --
> You can complain because roses have thorns, or you can rejoice
> because thorns have roses.
> - Ziggy - in a comic strip by Tom Wilson
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
You can complain because roses have thorns, or you can rejoice
because thorns have roses.
            - Ziggy - in a comic strip by Tom Wilson
--
  

Received on Sun 25 Feb 2007 01:57:05 AM PST