[meteorite-list] Science Channel's Top Ten Meteorites Of All Time

From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:42:25 -0800
Message-ID: <93aaac890912311442r1d73bd3fj124b53cc499a14e2_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello Eric, All,
I would disagree. Since we really don't know what made those
features, you're simply dealing with little inorganic structures that
science says are similar to those made by organisms on Earth.
You can hype them up in the media until the cows come home, and wish
for life on Mars until you die, but until you find proof, that's all
you have.
I've got nothing against the idea, but this whole thing is kind of
ridiculous; I'm waiting for a substantial bit of proof before I start
calling something important, as opposed to an interesting mineral
formation.
Happy New Years,
Jason

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Meteorites USA <eric at meteoritesusa.com> wrote:
> Mike, List,
>
> Perhaps the point of the Top Ten list is not to make a Top Ten list at all,
> but rather a conversation piece and publicity generating article simply to
> gain traffic. I mean we are after all speaking about it at length and have
> done so in the past as well...
>
> _at_Jason - In regards to ALH 84001, on the contrary. The difference between
> proven and unproven is irrelevant. The point is the "evidence" and
> "possibility" is there, which no other meteorite has, and that by itself
> should make it the most important meteorite (for now at least), regardless
> of whether it is solid proof of life. Does that make sense? If by chance
> science is wrong and it's not proof of extraterrestrial life it can be
> removed from the top of the list easily enough.
>
> I guess importance is subjective to personal preference and not science.
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
>
>
> On 12/31/2009 1:59 PM, Jason Utas wrote:
>>
>> Hello Mike,
>> On the contrary, Orguiel is a CI1, and is thus one of the most
>> primitive pieces of matter on the planet. ?It hasn't experienced
>> temperatures above about 200C - and contains a multitude of complex
>> organic molecules, just like Murchison. ?The only reason more work
>> hasn't been done on it is because there's simply not that much to go
>> around - it's much less common than its Australian rival.
>> But, yes, perhaps Tagish lake should belong on the list, as it *is*
>> the freshest available sample of such material available to modern
>> science. ?And Orgueil's historic, to boot! ?Great rock, that.
>> Such meteorites likely contained the building blocks of the earliest
>> organisms, as they seeded planets that, science tells us, would have
>> been devoid of complex organic molecules and water, those compounds
>> that are so necessary for the existence of life as we know it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> #2 - Hoba. ? The world's biggest iron and it certainly belongs on the
>>> list. ?But if Hoba was selected, then why not Canyon Diablo? ? The
>>> glaring absence of Canyon Diablo is also made more curious by the
>>> inclusion of Willamette.
>>>
>>
>> That's all very well, but I don't know what you mean by a bias towards
>> irons. ?The only one I see that doesn't belong is Wilamette, and I
>> think we're in agreement that it should be replaced by either Canyon
>> Diablo or Campo del Cielo.
>>
>> Also, the whole "life" in ALH 84001 thing...it could well be, but
>> until that's proven, I don't think you can really say it's the most
>> important meteorite that we have. ?It could be proof of
>> extraterrestrial life, but it might just be a cool Shergottite. ?Until
>> that's *proven,* you're just looking at another Port Orford, or a
>> Chinguetti of the scientific world, so to speak.
>>
>> But we're degenerating into making personal lists of ten again...there
>> it goes....
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Galactic Stone& ?Ironworks
>> <meteoritemike at gmail.com> ?wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Eric and List,
>>>
>>> An interesting little presentation, but I don't agree with some of the
>>> entries on the list.
>>>
>>> Let's start from #10 and work our way to the top.
>>>
>>> #10 - Allende. ?Allende certainly belongs on the list, but I think it
>>> may merit a higher rank than #10.
>>>
>>> #9 - Murchison. ?This one also belongs on the list, and based on the
>>> science alone, it should rank in the top 3 or top 5. ?Murchison has
>>> taught us much and it deserves a higher rank.
>>>
>>> #8 - Peekskill. ?A fine hammer fall and a great witnessed fall. ?I
>>> have no issues with this one, but Murchison should rank higher than
>>> Peekskill.
>>>
>>> #7 - Orgueil. ?Historical falls from previous centuries opens a whole
>>> new can of worms. ?If Orgueil is included, why not L'Aigle? ?Or why
>>> not another type fall like Nakhla? ?No offense to Orgueil, but this
>>> one is dubious entry on a list that is directed towards the mainstream
>>> lay-public audience.
>>>
>>> #6 - ALH 84001. ?This one should be #1 in my opinion. ?It is the Holy
>>> Grail of meteorites and it contains what many scientists agree is
>>> proof that life once existed on Mars. ?As the latest papers have
>>> revealed, the evidence for Martian life contained in this meteorite is
>>> increasingly solid. ?I can't think of a more significant meteorite
>>> than this one.
>>>
>>> #5 - Sylacauga. ?Mrs. Hodges would rank this one as #1. ?But is it
>>> more significant than ALH 84001? ?In my opinion, no. ?And couldn't
>>> they find a photo for it? ?A quick Google Image search or Encyclopedia
>>> of Meteorites search reveals several.
>>>
>>> #4 - Sikhote Alin. ?A great historical fall by all measures. ?I have
>>> no issue with this one, other than the obvious one - it shouldn't
>>> outrank ALH-84001.
>>>
>>> #3 - Willamette. ?Nice choice, but we are now seeing a definite bias
>>> on this list towards iron meteorites. ?If Willamette made the list,
>>> why not one (or more) of the Cape York masses? ?Heck, Murchison is
>>> certainly more significant than this one.
>>>
>>> #2 - Hoba. ? The world's biggest iron and it certainly belongs on the
>>> list. ?But if Hoba was selected, then why not Canyon Diablo? ? The
>>> glaring absence of Canyon Diablo is also made more curious by the
>>> inclusion of Willamette.
>>>
>>> #1 - Tunguska! ......a non-meteorite. ?This one is an odd choice.
>>> First, it's not a meteorite, it's an impact event. ?It was probably
>>> caused by a meteorite or comet, but no meteorites were recovered. ?And
>>> if we are going to include an impact event, why not Canyon Diablo? ?CD
>>> is more recognizable to the target audience of this list and there are
>>> tons of iron meteorites laying around to show for it. ? And if we are
>>> going to include speculative comets like Tunguska, then why not Tagish
>>> Lake?
>>>
>>> It's a fun list, but you can tell an intern put it together and not
>>> someone familiar with meteorites.
>>>
>>> Best regards and Happy New Year!
>>>
>>> MikeG
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/31/09, Meteorites USA<eric at meteoritesusa.com> ?wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Did anyone read the Science Channel's Top Ten Meteorites of All Time
>>>> list?
>>>> http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/meteors/meteors.html
>>>>
>>>> My article on MeteoriteBlog.com
>>>> http://meteoriteblog.com/top-ten-meteorites-of-all-time-science-channel/
>>>>
>>>> Opinions?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Eric Wichman
>>>> Meteorites USA
>>>> Meteorite Blog
>>>> Meteorite Wiki
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>>
>
Received on Thu 31 Dec 2009 05:42:25 PM PST