[meteorite-list] Hal Povenmire Contact Info?

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 17:45:49 -0500
Message-ID: <015f01c794e7$4ab87fb0$f54de146_at_ATARIENGINE>

Hi, Everybody,

    Ah, this is the internet at its most typical.

    Before characterizing a man's work, you really
ought to know something about them. Try: b. 1939;
meteor observer and photographer of over 2000
fireballs; discovered the upsilon Perseids; first to
map the full Georgiaite strewnfield; worked on the
Baker-Nunn Satellite tracking cameras; worked
for Project Apollo; and some of his bits'n'pieces
are still sitting on the Sea of Tranquility; has 190
publications. Carolyn Shoemaker named asteroid
(12753) Povenmire after him.
http://www.astronomytoday.com/astronomy/interview3.html
(also includes a summary of the lunar origin theory)

    Povenmire's last book, "Tektites: A Cosmic
Paradox" (1997), contains a perfectly reasonable
summary of tektites generally, much information
about Georgiaites, on which Povenmire is
something of an authority.

    It then has a series of essays about the origin
question, first by John O'Keefe, who supported
lunar origin, and another by the foremost geochemical
authority on tektites, the appropriately named Billy
Glass, who supports terrestrial origin. Then, we get
O'Keefe's answers to Glass, and Glass's answers to
O'Keefe, and back and forth again... each of whom
have points the other has trouble with.

    The is also a completely balanced bibliography
(199 items) of all the major scientific papers (up to
the date of publication. Whether he's changed his
mind about the origin of tektites in the last ten years,
I can't say (I've changed mine about 7-8 times, altho
I never liked the Moon as the culprit).

    He published an enlarged edition of this book in
2003. He's changed the subtitle from "paradox" to
"enigma." See The Meteorite Times:
http://www.meteorite-times.com/Back_Links/2003/January/Tektite_of_Month.htm
which also gives his address:
    Hal Povenmire
    215 Osage Dr.
    Indian Harbour Beach, FL 32937-3508

    The telephone directory says his phone number is
(321) 777-1303. As far as finding him goes, I get
about 2000 hits on Google with his name. Shouldn't
be too hard to find if you have a computer and a
minimum of two fingers.

    As far as tektites being settled, over and done with,
finished, as a puzzle, forget it. There are still plenty of
unexplained inconsistencies for every theory to be
embarrassed by. One problem is that what most people
think of as "one" theory, like the impact theory, is
really multiple impact theories. Glass's impact theory
(requires silt-sized sand grains but not coarse grains)
is contradictory to Melosh's impact theory (tektites
derived from deep sediments) which contradicts the
impact theory that derives them from surface deposits,
and so on. All the impact theories are different!


Sterling K. Webb
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Fowler" <mqfowler at mac.com>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Cc: "Mike Fowler" <mqfowler at mac.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 3:09 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Hal Povenmire Contact Info?


> [meteorite-list] Hal Povenmire Contact Info?
>
> Michael L Blood mlblood at cox.net
> Sat May 12 15:28:44 EDT 2007
>
> Previous message: [meteorite-list] Hal Povenmire Contact Info?
> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>
>
> on 5/12/07 11:24 AM, Mike Fowler at mqfowler at mac.com wrote:
>
>
> > Before the ion microprobe, isotope analysis, and actual lunar
> samples
>
> > for comparison, the lunar origin of tektites was tenable.
>
> >
>
> > Now it is not, and I wonder how someone who clings to a disproved
>
> > hypothesis can be considered to be eminent in his field?
>
> >
>
> > Mike Fowler
>
> > Chicago
>
> ---------
> Hi Mike,
> Not to be argumentative, but to add some perspective,
> 1) "Disproved" is relative.
> 2) If everyone in science lost all credibility whenever their
> perspective clashed with the majority of other scientists in
> their field not only would there be a huge loss in the number
> of scientists, but many of the greatest scientists in history
> would have gone unheard (and many have, no doubt).
> 3) Some might consider your above statement to be based
> in arrogance. Certainly it is founded in a narrow definition,
> if not outright misconception, of what is and what isn't
> "scientifically acceptable."
> 4) Some of the greatest figures of science clear back to the
> Greeks held beliefs difficult to imagine. Freud, unquestionably
> the "founder" of psychology dramatically over emphasized sex,
> was himself a sexist & believed "psychoanalysis" was an effective
> "treatment." (as a result, many still do, in spite of results of
> comparative studies involving other forms of psychotherapy).
> None of which makes the other 95% of Freud's work one whit
> less monumental, any more than Plato believing in
> spontaneous generation undermines his significance.
> Best wishes, Michael


Michael,

Here's the best analogy I can think of.

I'm sure you've heard of the New Jersey Iron object that crashed
through a roof and was hastily declared a meteorite. If the
scientists involved continued to insist it was a meteorite after an
analysis showed that chemically it was man made and not chemically
consistent with being a meteorite, what would you think?

I for one, would begin to doubt whether he is a good scientist. It
has nothing to do with arrogance, or scientific acceptability.
It has to do with making a hypothesis, testing it, and if
contradicted by the evidence, moving on.

Sincerely,

Mike Fowler


______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sat 12 May 2007 06:45:49 PM PDT