[meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientificallyimportant meteorites?

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:43:41 +0100
Message-ID: <002201c98f73$6a1aebd0$177f2a59_at_name86d88d87e2>

Hi Jason, Sterling, all,

I think we could keep Canyon Diablo also according Jason's requirements in
the Top-Ten-List.
Even if the establishing of craters as impact products is for some not
noteworthy enough,
we can keep Canyon Diablo on the list, because of a very important recovery
made by researching Canyon Diablo:

The determination of the age of the Earth in the 1950ies by the Ur-Pb-dating
of Canyon Diablo, done by Patterson.

Before, it was totally uncertain, how old Earth could be, because the
results were dependent on the assumptions of the different models, and the
results ranked from some hundred millions of years to 3 billions.

Solely from meteorites we know the rel. exact age of Earth and Solar System,
and Canyon Diablo was the first meteorite used for that dating.

If that isn't important enough, then I don't know.....


>that there are a great number of
>meteorites that are of great scientific interest that are more or less
>ignored because they come from NWA.

Well at the moment we're still in the period of the Big Harvest.

I'm very sure that rather sooner than later the desert meteorites will be
researched to the same extend than the other meteorites.
At the moment the find rates were to high, seen the capacities of the labs
and the specialists. Furthermore we have that, seen from the the
requirements of research and the huge potential on information, the
meteorites bear combined with the incredible low costs for the desert finds,
supplied by private initiatives,
that terribly silly under-funding of the institutes. And of course these
very years a lot of researchers and curators are unsettled by the theatre
the Canadians and Australians made and that propaganda of that type like
Chennaoui, Smith, Zipfel et.al. are spreading, ignoring the facts.

I don't want to play off the different branches. We know all that the
cheapest planetary mission can't be realized below 300 millions USD and
remote sensoring never will be able to replace the work on the very stones
in the labs on Earth. On the other hand we see, that the official
expeditions to the hot deserts are by far less efficient, seen the costs,
the total find rates and the number of rare types and scientifically most
interesting material, than the possibilities the NWA-trade offers.
Well and Antarctica is very important, but extremely cost-intensive, 100
millions per year, but the rare and exotic stones alone from NWA already
outnumber the Antarctic finds.

Therefore it would be not reasonable to do without the desert finds.

And imagine, you see it in Australia, there we have 7 new meteorites only in
10 years, found by chance and by scientific expeditions, you see it in
Libya, where it's even more dramatic,
you see it in Oman, which gives permissions only to the Suisse-coop,
which are among the official expeditions already the most successful,
but e.g. they found a single lunar - a single stone, while the private
professional hunters found 21 different lunars in hundreds of fragments,
and still today the Omani finds are not allowed to be traded to other
institutes,
so you can imagine, what will happen, if Morocco will be closed.
Then Chennaoui and colleagues have to hunt by their own and like the other
official teams they will find a handful of ordinary chondrites per year and
if they are very lucky here and there a CV3 or an eucrite.

Therefore I see two scenarios in future.
Either those apostles, who want to ban all private activities will be
successful -
then the NWAs already found so far will come in the focus of research,
simply because there will be recovered almost no meteorites anymore compared
to the fat years now. So the universities won't have nothing to research on
anymore - and you don't have to forget, that only a few institutes are
embedded in the research on Antarctic finds and only a few will be able to
cooperate with the NWA-countries. - Already today the exchange between
Canadian, Australian, Libyan (is there any at all), Omani institutes is very
poor.
So the NWAs will automatically come into the focus.

Or - second scenario
The curators and scientists recognize that the agenda of that group, which
propagates to inhibit the trade with material, is not backed by the
statistics, the facts and the truth (and that it will lead to heavy
restrictions of their work) and that this agenda is a product of missing
knowledge.
And they will work on the NWAs like on "normal" meteorites and like they did
the 200 years before.

Today we have already the situation, that e.g. London and also some
US-Institutes following a certainly well-intended political correctness are
not acquiring NWA-matrial anymore, because they don't know the legal facts
and they tend to believe the propaganda of that group.
So in fact, these institutes and especially the museums already are
neglecting their scientific obligations and conservatory task, because of
these false pretences, spread by that group.

But that is a minor problem, they only have to read the result of the
Casablanca-Meeting, where it was stated that the meteorites from Morocco
were perfectly legal.

Furthermore the prices of NWA-material and all other meteorites are
publically accessible to everyone. Because the meteorite market is exactly
the opposite of the "black market" those people are propagating in media,
it is very transparent.
With the system of the central recording and publishing of all meteorites by
the Meteoritical Society, they have always a survey at hand, which material
does exist at all and in which quantities.

The prices of the last 200 years and the expenses of the institutes and
museums are visible the archives and the publications,
the expenses and find rates of official expeditions and the Antarctic
campaigns, cause it is public money, should be found published too (although
with Antarctica I have difficulties to find it in internet. Only here a
figure, there a number. 30 millions for Euromet here, 20 Millions for NIPR
there, 70 millions a year for fuel and stuff for McMurdo...)

So it's for everyone evident, that NWA isn't only a blessing for science but
that they are by far the most cost-effective way to do research about out
solar system.

You know, Argentina, now Poland... these laws are made by politicians,
who got alerted by the propaganda of people like Schmitt&Smith.
They read about black market, drug dealers, weapon spivs, they are stuffed
with the prices of the lunaites of the 90ies and they get served a grotesque
distortion of the quantities of material.

Gosh, do I expect to much, if I ask, that a Chennaoui a Smith takes
themselves only once that hour time to check the tkws in the Bulletin
database? I mean, meteorites are their profession and they are even so
lucky to be paid for their passion.
The highest of high of non-OCs, the eucrites, were you have to pick up first
hundreds of chondrites, 40kg from Antarctica in 30+ years, 100kgs from NWA
and other deserts in 20 years......
And if they expose theirselves in that way, couldn't we expect, that they
spend altogether 2 days for getting a survey or an impression of meteorite
pricing?

Each newbie among the laymen coming to meteorites is able to check these
stats and facts.

And naturally politicians, cause they have no insight, they say eeeeeeeek
sounds dangerous, let's make a law.

But how would they react, if you tell them the find rates of Antarctica and
universitary expeditions and their costs? If you'd tell them the costs of
space flight and earth-bound research in the neighboured subjects?
And if you'd tell them in the end.
that the complete annual output of the deserts, exceeding all other ways of
getting this desired and highly relevant material by weight, by numbers, by
weight, by most interesting and important finds,
that this output is completely available at costs, which do not exceed the
costs for 3 or 4 common research projects on of a department 3 or 4
mid-sized universities?
(For that, what is spend for 1 week Antarctic search, they could have the
complete masses of 5 or 6 different lunars - and lunars are by far already
the most expensive stuff -)

That is the true beef.

So it is simply completely unreasonable not to research or not to acquire
desert finds additionally to the material found by official campaigns
(and perhaps also somewhat unjustifiable towards the public, which has to
pay the latter).

And that's why I have not the slightest doubts, that NWA will play their
role in future.
Only a little patience is necessary.

Back from the digression.

Only for my taste - I would replace Ensisheim by Elbogen.
Elbogen felt earlier, the legends are recorded.
Ensisheim hadn't that impact, even young Wolfgang v.Goethe still made jokes
about the funny aborigines, who believed that the chunk in the church had
fallen from sky.
And Widmannstaetter used Elbogen to print his famous Thomson-structures.

Happy Sunday!
Martin



-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Jason
Utas
Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. Februar 2009 04:37
An: Meteorite-list
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most
scientificallyimportant meteorites?

Hello Graham, Sterling, John, Jeff, Walter, Rob, All,

With regards to Sterling's point - true enough, but that's taking the
historical angle again - we didn't believe that impact craters
existed, we find a crater surrounded by meteorites, and eventually
enough research added up to prove that it was indeed an impact crater.
 But this could have been done at any other crater that wasn't badly
eroded...it's like L'Aigle in the sense that you're talking about a
paradigm shift that could have been caused by any meteorite, any
crater. In fact, the meteorite itself in this case becomes irrelevant
- you're talking about a crater being important, not the irons. And
the irons are fairly typical IAB's, chemically very similar to a
number of other irons.

I think the trouble is that we need clarification when making such a
list because, as a number of you are saying, we're all just making
lists based on our interpretation of Graham's request. I saw his
question as a demand for a list of meteorites which were of particular
scientific note, and made just such a list - but even I became
sidetracked in my mentioning of the first lunar and martian meteorites
ever recognized, for they fall into the historically, rather than
scientifically important category. Their discovery was of note, but
the meteorites themselves...while not typical, they're nothing too out
of the ordinary.

So what determines whether or not a meteorite is of scientific
interest? I believe that mentioning things like L'Aigle or Canyon
Diablo in this case is wrong because the meteorites, while they did
cause major shifts in how we see the solar system and how it works,
are relatively ordinary. But beyond that...I believe Greg Hupe had a
good point when he mentioned that there are a great number of
meteorites that are of great scientific interest that are more or less
ignored because they come from NWA. I think it's going to take
looking beyond what we think of as rare, because what we know as
collectors isn't really what's scientifically important. In many
cases, we never get a chance to buy those rocks, and there's good
reason for it.

I see it in a number of the lists mentioned; at least one person
mentioned Calcalong Creek - without even making note of ALHA81005, the
first recognized lunar meteorite. Why? Calcalong Creek is a rare and
beautiful meteorite, granted, but is it particularly scientifically
important? No. But - it was the first lunar meteorite available to
the public.

Rocks like Graves Nunataks (GRA) 06128 and 06129, like NWA 011,
Ibitira, Semarkona, Kaidun - they do much more individually to further
our knowledge of the solar system. I couldn't make a list of ten,
because saying which unique meteorite or trait of a particular
meteorite holds greater importance isn't something I see as
rewarding...thinking about it just makes me realize how fortunate we
are to be able to actually collect and touch these pieces of the very
distant past.

Regards,
Jason

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Sterling K. Webb
<sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Dear Jason, List,
>
>> Canyon Diablo... helped us to understand impact dynamics
>> but as to how that plays into our understanding of the
>> evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really.
>
> Prior to the assertion that Meteor Crater was an impact
> feature, the concept of "impact" as a possible event was
> nil, non-existent, and when proposed was widely denied,
> pooh-pooh'ed -- an affront to the orderly and rational
> natural world.
>
> Barringer conceived of the crater as what we would call
> a particularly large impact pit, not an explosive crater, but
> the evidence drew him that way. Nininger was really the
> first to understand the possibility of impact as a geological
> process (without understanding the scale on which it was
> possible) and that understanding led straight to the late Gene
> Shoemaker, who single-handedly pushed a planet full of
> resistant scientists into the realization by patiently rubbing
> their noses in it for decades.
>
> Shoemaker's 1960 paper ending the 70-year dispute about
> the origin of Meteor Crater caused a sensation in geology,
> as it was the first definitive proof of an extraterrestrial impact
> on the Earth's surface. This was the first crater "proved" to be
> of impact origin. Proving that impact was a fundamental
> geological process would take decades longer. Paradigms
> don't always shift quickly.
>
> In the 1950's, the only cratered body known to science
> was the Moon, so presumably craters were an odd or
> unique feature in the Solar System, an individual characteristic
> of the Moon, not of planetary bodies generally. It was virtually
> universally understood that the 1000's of craters that covered
> the Moon were volcanic features. Our exploration of the Moon
> was substantially biased toward finding (mostly non-existent)
> evidence of volcanic activity.
>
> Even the first photos of craters on Mars in 1965 by Mariner 4
> did not budge that mindset much. This was one of those
> you-had-to-be-there moments -- the shock and disbelief caused
> by craters on Mars (and the quivers of denial that followed)
> was profound, like being hit between the eyes with a two-by-four.
> Well, they were probably volcanic craters anyway...
>
> The 1970's competed the change of paradigm and the fact of
> impact as a geological process (the title of the book that nailed it
> down firmly). That almost every body in the Solar System
> with a solid surface is cratered is now a Ho Hum fact. The
> reason that you, Jason, can think it's not important is because
> you are on the "modern" side of the conceptual divide. Until
> the understanding of impact, solar system formation models
> were divided between "accretion" and "coalescence." Very
> few people still believe planets formed like a dew drop any
> more. The change in formation theory walks hand-in-hand
> with impact theory.
>
> If Canyon Diablo was the catalyst for the recognition of
> impact processes in the Solar System -- and I think it was --
> then it might well be the "most significant in increasing our
> understanding of the evolution of our solar system."
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Utas" <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
> To: "Meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 5:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most
> scientificallyimportant meteorites?
>
>
> Hola All,
> I would have to respectfully disagree. The original post my Graham
> asked for a list of ten of "the most important meteorites with regard
> to science," and he then went on to ask: "Which ones have been the
> most significant in increasing our understanding of the evolution of
> our solar system, and what they have taught us?"
> I believe that the implication of his email was not to ask for a list
> of meteorites that helped to further our acceptance of meteoritics as
> a field, but rather to obtain a list of the ten most scientifically
> interesting meteorites. And, to be perfectly frank, if L'Aigle had
> been any other type (iron, stony-iron, etc), the outcome of the
> situation would have been the same. As a meteorite, while it did help
> to open our eyes as to what was actually out there, it did little to
> tell us of the history of the formation of the solar system.
> And Michael's list is more of a list of the most beautiful/interesting
> meteorites from the point of view of a collector...it's just a
> different sort of list. Did Esquel or Sylacouga contribute to our
> knowledge about the early solar system? Not particularly, but they
> are two of the more desireable meteorites around, for non-scientific
> reasons. Canyon Diablo is interesting in its own right as a
> crater-forming meteorite, as it helped us to understand impact
> dynamics - but as to how that plays into our understanding of the
> evolution of the solar system...it doesn't, really.
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Michael Blood <mlblood at cox.net> wrote:
>> Hi Jason and all,
>> First of all, I think it should be mentioned that any such
>> List is inevitably biased.
>> Next, that said list cannot possibly "nail" a specific 10
>> meteorites.
>> Assuming these two prospects are accepted, here are 10
>> Very respectable meteorites that would certainly merit full
>> Consideration in comprising such a list ( and at least one "why"
>> Per each:
>>
>> 1) Canyon Diablo:
>> prototypical and stable iron from what was
>> recognized as the "only" impact crater for a very long time. It
>> Can be added that it was also the original site of the Nininger
>> Museum
>>
>> 2) Allende: HUGE strewn field and, at the time, more than
>> Doubled the total weight of known CR material available.
>> It was also a witnessed fall with multiple hammer stones
>> Striking homes and patios
>>
>> 3) Esquel: "The queen of the Pallasites" with fantastic color,
>> Translucency, freedom from rust and in quantities large enough
>> To allow any collector to have one of the few stable Pallasites.
>>
>> 4) Murchison: Providing most of the amino acids that comprise the
>> "building blocks" of life, perhaps the most "studied" of any meteorite
>> Ever and a major contributor to the angiosperm hypothesis. Again,
>> a witnessed fall and a hammer.
>>
>> 5) Portalas Valley: Perhaps a surprise in many lists, this specimen has
>> A unique physiology. Also a hammer.
>>
>> 6) Weston: The first scientifically recognized meteorite in "the new
>> world."
>> Also a hammer.
>>
>> 7. L'Aigle: see below. (Also, there will be a forthcoming article on the
>> Status of L'Aigle as a hammer).
>>
>> 8) Ensischeim: "The meteorite from hell." (also a hammer if you care to
>> consider a church courtyard a man made artifact). This is one of the
>> richest
>> events ever in the "lore" of meteorites.
>>
>> 9) Sikhote-Aline: producing thousands of what are pretty much agreed to
be
>> the world's most visually impressive iron individuals. Also a rare Iron
>> witnessed fall.
>>
>> 10) Sylacauga: the only fully documented human striking meteorite.
>>
>> I could easily add several more, but these are just my 2 cents
>> worth, anyway. I am likely wrong, as my wife repeatedly assures me
>> I am.
>> Best wishes, Michael
>>
>>
>> On 2/14/09 4:59 AM, "Martin Altmann" <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jason,
>>>
>>> Even though we're living in a fast world and the "modernism" of our days
>>> may
>>> give the impression, that new scientific recoveries are drawn out of the
>>> nothing.
>>> But science and ideas are always integrated in traditions and contexts
>>> and
>>> are built on earlier steps.
>>> Chladni hadn't invented the idea, that the stones may stem from outside.
>>> He connected the idea that they come from space with the fireballs, the
>>> existing stones and reports about the falls and postulated additionally,
>>> that they could survive the atmospheric travel.
>>> That approach was ridiculous for his contemporary scientists.
>>> After the period of "enlightment" it was impossible that chunks fall
from
>>> sky, Newton required empty spaces between the planets or at it best,
>>> cause
>>> they were Aristotelians, they had to be atmospheric products.
>>> (Although Tycho had measured long before the parallaxes of comets, to
>>> find
>>> out that they move indeed in space).
>>>
>>> So Chladni's weird theory never would have been accepted, if there
>>> wouldn't
>>> have happened that proof, the mighty shower of L'Aigle, conveniently
>>> close
>>> to the Acad?mie de sciences.
>>>
>>> Therefore L'Aigle is for me a benchmark. Without L'Aigle no Chladni, no
>>> Schreibers, no Daubr?e...no modern meteoritics. (At least not to the
>>> advanced stage we have today).
>>>
>>> Shhht Jason, btw. Chladni isn't that much known as Father of
meteoritics,
>>> but for his "Acoustics", he certainly is partially responsible for the
>>> gig
>>> tootling out from your speakers, while you're writing to the list :-)
>>>
>>> Sure it's only an ordinary chondrite, but you don't meet the meaning of
>>> this
>>> milestone, if you look with today's eyes on it.
>>>
>>>> It's an ordinary chondrite, of which there are thousands
>>>
>>> Which gives in fact to that class an especially high scientific
>>> importance,
>>> doesn't it? The chondrites conserved the most original information about
>>> the
>>> origin of our solar system, the processes who lead to the formation of
>>> planets and they resemble much more the stuff we are all made from, than
>>> any
>>> differentiated meteorite, which tells us rather the history and
>>> development
>>> of his individual parent body. And ready we aren't yet with the
>>> chondrites.
>>> Ho many theories of chondrules genesis we have at present? Eleven?
>>> Look the recent decade, the discovery of protoplanetary discs around
>>> other
>>> stars..... and so on.
>>> Only because they are so readily available to the collectors and despite
>>> the
>>> antartcic ones so cheap like never before (yes Mrs.Caroline Smith.
>>> Fletcher,
>>> Hey, check the museum's archives, had to pay much more than you),
>>> they shouldn't be disregarded.
>>>
>>> Hey, and confess Jason! The sight of something like that
>>> http://www.chladnis-heirs.com/36.956g.jpg
>>> doesn't it made your mouth water?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, each warehouse telescope for 30 bucks is better than that, which
>>> Galilei pointed to the Moon or Jupiter. But what for an importance it
>>> had!
>>> Would we have a Hubble Space telescope now, without that use of the
lousy
>>> lense 400 years ago? (Although maybe Galileo's or Copernicus' role is
>>> maybe
>>> sometimes somewhat overrated, media stars... Copernicus' system was in
>>> practise inoperative and he had his Islamic and antique antecessors -
I'm
>>> a
>>> fan of Tycho, which was much more important for modern astronomy and our
>>> view of the world, as he was the first, who trumped the Islamic
>>> astronomy.
>>> Without the results of his large-scale instruments, no Kepler, no
Newton,
>>> no
>>> Oberth, no Rovers on Mars, no security that the pieces in the Chladni
>>> Boxes
>>> really originated from the red planet...).
>>> Of course it's never a continuously direct and mono-causal
development...
>>> Chance and accident are also factors.
>>> Allende and Murchison e.g. never would rank in the importance among the
>>> first places, if they hadn't such large tkws or if they had fallen in
the
>>> oceans and if there the Moon labs weren't just ready, when they felt.
>>>
>>> But in general L'Aigle was the proof.
>>> Scientifically important, because with that fall, the concept of
>>> meteorites
>>> had to be accepted and the branch of this science was born at all.
>>>
>>> So it's my number one - only in my personal opinion of course.
>>>
>>> If we follow your criteria, Jason, everything but the very new had to be
>>> ruled out and most probably we would have to make a ranking of the so
far
>>> unique - the ungrouped and similar exotics, where we don't have fully
the
>>> clues, what exactly it could be.
>>>
>>> Off now, have to jump into my carriage without horses.
>>> (Hmmm was that important? Quite an unacceptable junk...
>>> http://kuerzer.de/unimport
>>> and we certainly would prefer a Lamborghini :-)
>>>
>>> Best!
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von
Jason
>>> Utas
>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 02:21
>>> An: Meteorite-list
>>> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most
>>> scientificallyimportantmeteorites?
>>>
>>> Hola Martin,
>>> I would have to disagree - when you go that far back, you wind up
>>> dealing with meteorites that are of historic, rather than scientific
>>> interest. L'Aigle may be something of an exception because it did
>>> lead to the *scientific* acceptance of meteorites, but, from today's
>>> scientific perspective, I wouldn't call it very important, never mind
>>> giving it a place in the top ten. It's an ordinary chondrite, of
>>> which there are thousands - it's no more special than, say, Tenham or
>>> Gao - from a purely scientific point of view.
>>> One might as well call the earliest fossils found the most important,
>>> simply because they were found back in the day and led to our
>>> recognition of what they really represented...while they may be
>>> important, I would hesitate to call them extremely important from a
>>> scientific point of view.
>>> Regards,
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Martin Altmann
>>> <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> wrote:
>>>> I choose L'Aigle as N?1.
>>>>
>>>> Cause else they wouldn't have recognized, that Chladni was right and
>>>> that
>>>> they are from space.
>>>>
>>>> Best!
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>>>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von
>>>> ensoramanda at ntlworld.com
>>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 14. Februar 2009 00:55
>>>> An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>>> Betreff: [meteorite-list] What are the top 10 most scientifically
>>>> importantmeteorites?
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Just thought it might be interesting to discover list members opinions
>>>> on
>>>> what they would choose as the most important meteorites with regard to
>>>> science? Which ones have been the most significant in increasing our
>>>> understanding of the evolution of our solar system, and what they have
>>>> taught us?
>>>>
>>>> Graham Ensor, UK.
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sun 15 Feb 2009 08:43:41 AM PST