[meteorite-list] Gebel Kamil webpage

From: info at niger-meteorite-recon.de <info_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:22:19 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1396410878.289184.1280474539226.JavaMail.open-xchange_at_oxltgw04.schlund.de>

Wouldn't the head of the Kamil expedition, Dr. Luigi Folco, be the qualified
authority to comment on the photos he and his team produced on the site? I asked
him whether the two photos show two different finds or the same 83 kg mass.
?
http://www.b14643.de/Sahara/Kamil_Patatrac_Crater/Kamil_1big.jpg
?
http://www.b14643.de/Sahara/Kamil_Patatrac_Crater/Kamil_3big.jpg
?
The kind gentlemen that he is, Dr. Folco took the time to reply to my trivial
question.

Quote:
?
"Dear Dr Buhl,
The two pictures feature the same 83 kg regmaglypted individual of the
Gebel Kamil meteorite. Its just a matter of different perspectives.
Sincerely,
Luigi"

End of quote.

Regards,
Svend
?
?
?
?
?


Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com> hat am 30. Juli 2010 um 07:16 geschrieben:

> Hello Regine, All,
> While I agree that the overall shapes of the irons are similar, and
> concede that you probably know more about photography than I do, I do
> know much about in-situ photographs and desert terrain.
>
> The trouble with assuming that the photo on the left is a "cleaned-up"
> version is the following, which I'd like to condense and then apply.
>
> #1
> Photo 1: meteorite 1/2 buried
> Photo 2: meteorite on surface
>
> #2
> Photo 1: meteorite clean
> Photo 2: meteorite covered in dirt
>
> #3
> Photo 1: meteorite in undisturbed soil, surroundings
> Photo 2: meteorite on surface, may have been moved (dirt/rocks on
> surface would suggest otherwise, but possible).? Surroundings
> themselves look undisturbed.
>
> #4
> Photo 1: meteorite in sandy area, small rocks
> Photo 2: meteorite in rocky area
>
> So, #1.? The photograph on the left shows a meteorite well-embedded in
> the ground.? And the surface soil has been moved in only two locations
> around the entire meteorite (#3).? There is a left-handprint that
> clearly breaks up the uniform texture of the undisturbed ground in
> front of/to the left of the iron, and it looks as though someone poked
> the ground a few inches in front of the pen used for scale.? The rest
> is undisturbed desert pavement.? If you were to step on it, you'd
> change the surface -- and it won't be the same until after the next
> rain.
>
> Apply #4.? They clearly didn't move the large rocks from around the
> meteorite on the right because the ground around the meteorite on the
> left is almost entirely undisturbed.? The meteorite on the left is
> undisturbed as well (and it's half-buried, as opposed to being on the
> surface); compare to the photograph on the right.
>
> Both meteorites have tapering ends.? But in the photograph on the
> right, the "tail-end" is clearly several inches above the ground.? The
> photograph on the left shows no such thing.? That meteorite (on the
> left) is really sitting *in* the ground, as opposed to on top of it
> (again, compare to right-hand photo).? I suppose you could chalk this
> up to an optical illusion, but I really don't think that it is.? Take
> a look...
>
> Again, the meteorite on the left is half buried, yet clean, and in an
> undisturbed, rock-free area.
> The meteorite on the right is sitting on the surface of the ground, is
> covered with rock and dirt, and is also sitting in a relatively
> unaltered bit of desert.
>
> This is what happens if you step on similar ground.
>
> http://vormedia.com/images/mono2037.jpg
>
> http://media1.z2.zoopy.com/media/2009/05/20/7304/42304/original.jpg
>
> Compare to each meteorite photo.? They're both sitting in pretty
> pristine desert.? Not even a footprint.
> It's a textural thing.
>
> If you're saying that they cleaned up the photo on the right to make
> the one on the left, you're going to have to explain why they wanted
> to bury the iron deeper into the ground than it was in the first
> place, how they did so without disturbing the desert pavement in the
> immediate vicinity of the meteorite, and how they removed the rocks
> and made the new surface look as though it had never been disturbed.
>
> I've taken far too many in-situ photographs of meteorites in desert
> conditions; even stepping on a hard-pan lakebed can leave visible
> traces in photos.? Both photos on this site show the meteorite(s) in
> undisturbed terrain, and yet one is sitting in the ground, and one is
> sitting on top of it.? If we are looking at two photos of the same
> meteorite (which I doubt), the meteorite must have been moved, but if
> it was, it was from the left photo to the right photo.? And whoever
> was carrying it was able to set it down without even stepping on the
> ground visible in the photo.
>
> It's hard to do that when you're carrying nearly 180 pounds.
>
> I have no agenda/reason for saying this; it makes no difference to me
> whether or not there are one or two such irons.
>
> But I'm seeing double, and they really don't look like twins.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Regine Petersen <fips_bruno at yahoo.de> wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > 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 Fri 30 Jul 2010 03:22:19 AM PDT