[meteorite-list] Gebel Kamil webpage

From: Regine Petersen <fips_bruno_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:55:30 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <412836.87143.qm_at_web27008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Hi all,

I'm fairly new to meteorites but I do know a bit more about photographs. Quite a couple of times I have looked at different images of the same meteorite and thought at first glance they were different specimens.

The image in the rocky area might be an image of how the meteorite was originally found, then the rocks might have been moved and the area cleaned up including the sand on top of the rock. A bit of grooming to make it pretty for the photo perhaps.

If you turn the rocky image 90 degree anti-clock wise and the clean one 90 degree clock-wise it seems to be likely the same rock, the first one being shot from above (see GPS facing the viewer and the overall angle now looking much more appropriate). If you then carefully study the surface structure and keep in mind the angle difference it seems quite likely to be the same individual.

Good night everyone,

Regine

--- Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> schrieb am Do, 29.7.2010:

> Von: Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Gebel Kamil webpage
> An: "Meteorite-list" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Datum: Donnerstag, 29. Juli, 2010 17:21 Uhr
> Hello Bernd, Svend, All,
> 1) The background for each photo is significantly
> different.? One is
> loose sand.? The other, large rocks.
> The photos were therefor not taken in the same place.
> 2) The photo on the left is pretty clearly the iron before
> it was
> moved.? It's well-embedded in undisturbed
> ground.? The photo on the
> right...maybe not.? We can't tell if that iron is
> sitting on the
> ground (so it could have been moved there).
> 3) If we're to assume the photo of the iron on the right is
> of the
> same iron, we have to wonder about why they would have
> removed it from
> its hole (on the left), moved it to a rocky area (photo on
> right), put
> some soil on top if it (note that it's clean on the left),
> and then
> took another picture of it, with a GPS next to it, as
> though they're
> recording a find location.? Of course, the GPS could
> just be for
> scale, but since they didn't use a GPS for scale purposes
> with the
> left hand (clearly in-situ) photo, it seems unlikely that
> they would
> then use it exclusively for scale purposes after moving the
> iron.
> -All the less likely because the first photo shows a fairly
> wide angle
> - and there are *no* rocks nearby.
> I suppose you could count this as circumstantial evidence,
> because the
> iron could have been exhumed, moved, covered in dirt, and
> then
> photographed, but this seems very unlikely.
>
> Regardless, the photos are clearly not of the same thing
> taken from
> different angles, because the background in each is?
> very, very
> different.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:59 AM,? <bernd.pauli at paulinet.de>
> wrote:
> > "An 83 kg meteorite specimen found 230 m due north of
> the crater showing regmaglypts"
> >
> > "largest recoveredmass ca. 80 kg"
> >
> > Wouldn't that imply that this is *one* and the *same*
> mass?
> > .. maybe photographed from different angles?
> >
> > Bernd
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Thu 29 Jul 2010 08:55:30 PM PDT