[meteorite-list] Gebel Kamil webpage

From: countdeiro at earthlink.net <countdeiro_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:55:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <12705098.1280501711084.JavaMail.root_at_wamui-cynical.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Svend and List,

With all due respect to my fellow Italian, Dr. Luigi Folco, the subject of the pics, as he confirms, may be the same meteorite, but it doesn't take a very close observation to see that, rather than the pics being taken of the same subject from a "different perspective", they were taken at two entirely different locations. The meteorite has been moved and further...it has had regolith intentionally, or unintentionally scattered on it. For God's sake look at the size of that material in the regs! And those fist sized rocks next to meteorite in one pic and absent in the other.

The question begs to be asked, Svend....Luigi, did your folks move it after one of the pics was taken? It certainly looks as if someone did move it and further, added, or removed, debris from it's surface.

Best regards,

Guido

   

-----Original Message-----
>From: "info at niger-meteorite-recon.de" <info at niger-meteorite-recon.de>
>Sent: Jul 30, 2010 3:22 AM
>To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Gebel Kamil webpage
>
>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
>______________________________________________
>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 10:55:10 AM PDT