[meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully)

From: countdeiro at earthlink.net <countdeiro_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:58:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <28041403.1276981111764.JavaMail.root_at_wamui-cynical.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Hi Bob and Listers,

If it hit Mr. Blood. We could call it a "MIKE HAMMER".

Guido

-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Loeffler <bobl at peaktopeak.com>
>Sent: Jun 19, 2010 4:54 PM
>To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully)
>
>Well, we can't call those two "hammers" because we don't know for sure if
>they actually hit animals/dinosaurs, do we? :-) I'm sure they did, but we
>shouldn't assume.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cdtucson at cox.net [mailto:cdtucson at cox.net]
>Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 2:25 PM
>To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com; Bob Loeffler
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully)
>
>Bob.
> "Man made Object"
>Sounds very smart to me.
>So, What would you call a meteorite that makes a big divot say like Meteor
>crater or the Dino extinction size? "Sledge hammer"?
>Carl
>--
>Carl or Debbie Esparza
>Meteoritemax
>
>
>---- Bob Loeffler <bobl at peaktopeak.com> wrote:
>> I like the idea of categorizing these meteorites as "hammers", but I don't
>> like the definition because "artifact" is way too general. In my opinion,
>> there are many artifacts of human activity that don't deserve the "hammer"
>> classification. Examples: a mound of dirt, or a landscaped yard, or a
>dirt
>> road, or a "rock garden". But, if there is a garden gnome in your yard
>that
>> scares away young children and a meteorite hits it, then the met would be
>a
>> hammer stone because it is an object that was created by humans.
>>
>> Maybe Michael meant "a man-made OBJECT" when he decided to use the word
>> "artifact", but there are other types/definitions of artifacts and
>therefore
>> the confusion. The word artifact can also be used for the inaccurate
>result
>> of human activity or technology (e.g. a blip in an x-ray image). So some
>> people might stretch the case of the meteorite landing into a cowpie as
>> being an artifact because the cow was not indigenous to the US and people
>> brought them here from Europe, so when it pooped, that poop is an artifact
>> of human activity. Yes, definitely a stretch, but that's because
>"artifact"
>> is too general.
>>
>> In any case, Michael coined the term, so it's his decision to modify the
>> definition or not.
>>
>> I like the term "hammer" (or "hammer stone") only if it's used with a
>> description of why it's a hammer. For example, if an ebay ad says
>"Claxton
>> meteorite - Hammer stone - 10g", that gets my attention. Then when I look
>> at the description of it, it better say WHY it's a hammer stone. If it
>> doesn't, that dealer goes on my blacklist... or I'm just weary about that
>> dealer until they have proven that they are legitimate and not just using
>> the term to increase the marketability of the specimen.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
>> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Shawn
>Alan
>> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:49 PM
>> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>(hopefully)
>>
>> Hi Jason and Listers :)
>>
>> Jason, I did get your point and I think your confusing your points because
>> what you keep saying has no purpose from a collecting stand point. Ill
>> explain.... you said from your last post.....
>> ?
>> "All I'm saying is that the word itself is unnecessary. It takes a
>> detail about a meteorite and generalizes it - if the stone hit a
>> building, it's a hammer, if it hit a road, it....may be a hammer, if
>> it hit a car, it's a hammer."
>> ?
>> To generalize is unnecessary? I am confused. So for me to put?something
>into
>> a category is unnecessary? Well I guess it would be safe to say lets
>dismiss
>> historic falls as a generalized term, or how about a whole stone or a
>slice.
>> The fact of the matter is from a collectors stand point these categories,
>> or?in your case Jason, generalization, are there for a?collectability
>> purposes.
>> ?
>> You keep confusions these collectible terms as unnecessary from a
>scientific
>> stand point. That is true, science doesn't care if its a historic fall, or
>> if its a hammer, or if?its a hammer stone, or in your case, if its a whole
>> stone. What science cares about is the classification, where the meteorite
>> came from, or the chemical makeup.
>> ?
>> However, from a historical stand point and collectors stand point, science
>> and history plays a very big role in ones collection and how they see fit
>to
>> collect meteorites. If I only collect hammer falls and hammer stone then,
>I
>> want to know if the stone hit an animal, or human, or artifact, or a man
>> made object and will determine if its worth ?being in my collection. Or in
>> your case you collect whole stones. Or someone else only may?collect
>> historic falls. ?
>> ?
>> Collecting is subjective from the individuals taste and wants. There is no
>> science behind it, only a rich history , the stories that meteorites tell
>> people from where they have been. Or??the previous owner, or if the
>> meteorite had hit something or not. To have a category for meteorites that
>> have hit an artifact, human, animal, man made object is important in the
>> collectability stand point of meteorite collecting.
>> ?
>> Many people on the list and around the world use the term hammer stone/
>> hammer fall to decipher a meteorite from a collective stand point. If we
>> didn't have these two terms, which by you its seems generic and lessons
>the
>> value of meteorites, it would be hard to put this type of fall into a sub
>> category from a collectability stand point.
>> ?
>> Shawn Alan
>> IMCA 1633
>> eBaystore
>>
>?http://shop.ebay.com/photophlow/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=
>> p4340
>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully)
>> Jason Utas meteoritekid at gmail.com
>> Thu Jun 17 17:15:18 EDT 2010
>>
>> Previous message: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>> (hopefully)
>> Next message: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question
>> (hopefully)
>> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>>
>>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> Michael, All,
>> You're just getting hung up in the terminology. A collector who
>> collects meteorites that have hit man-made objects is fine by me. But
>> when people start going around using the word "hammer" to describe
>> such stones - and people are taking the liberty of using terms like
>> "hammer-fall stones" to sell stones that haven't hit anything other
>> than the ground...you're just asking for trouble.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that the word itself is unnecessary. It takes a
>> detail about a meteorite and generalizes it - if the stone hit a
>> building, it's a hammer, if it hit a road, it....may be a hammer, if
>> it hit a car, it's a hammer.
>>
>> It's not like we're streamlining things by applying this one term -
>> we're just losing information, and while you say the term "hammer" is
>> well-defined, I would like to point out the debate on-list about the
>> 'hammer status' of a meteorite that hits a dirt road or a
>> plowed/cleared field. After all, a dirt road is about as much of a
>> man-made structure as a leveled and cleared field. Same goes for a
>> dirt dam.
>> So a "hammer" is a meteorite that has fallen on anything that isn't
>> virgin land? I mean...things seems to be a little vague right now.
>>
>> Your definition:
>>
>> "Hammer:" any individual which is part of a hammer fall in which
>> one or more of the individuals struck an artifact, animal or human.
>>
>> Define a "human artifact." Would a road or plowed field be included
>> in your definition? Or does it have to be a smaller sort of tangible
>> object that's been altered by humanity in some way? What if a
>> meteorite hits something like a rose bush in my yard, here in LA.
>> That rose bush wouldn't be here if it weren't for people, and if its
>> remains were excavated from the archaeologic remains of my house in
>> several thousand years, it would be treated as an artifact,
>> because...it is one. That rose is the product of hundreds of years of
>> selective breeding, and wouldn't exist in this climate if it weren't
>> for my grandmother, who planted it, and us, who water it.
>>
>> Or how about the meteorite that hits a plowed field? Again, you're
>> looking at a piece of land that has been substantially altered by the
>> hand of man - it has been leveled, cleared, and fertilized for decades
>> in all likelihood. That piece of land has undergone more alteration
>> than the dirt berm upon which an Ash Creek stone was found - that was
>> just a bunch of dirt piled into a hill.
>>
>> Or how about a dirt road - that's just a strip of land that's been
>> scraped over by a bulldozer. Much less altered than a plowed field.
>>
>> Again, when you start using generic terms to describe things, you lose
>> specificity. When I say that people shouldn't collect "hammers," I'm
>> not critiquing your collection of meteorites that have hit man-made
>> things.
>> I'm criticizing your use of a term that takes the *individual* history
>> of each stone and makes it "a hammer."
>>
>> Chiang Kahn no longer hit a boat - it's a "hammer."
>> Sylacouga no longer clipped Mrs. Hodges - it's a "hammer."
>> And Peekskill didn't hit a car - it's a "hammer."
>>
>> Now do you see what I'm saying? There's no reason to start calling
>> things "hammer" and try to define a new term that is subjective, no
>> matter how much you say it's not.
>>
>> Such practices can be useful - when I see a meteorite, it wouldn't
>> help me for someone to say that, for example,
>> NWA 004 is a meteorite with Fayalite (mol%): 22.2 and Ferrosilite
>> (mol%): 18.6 (12.6-20.5).
>> I can read that, but what means more to me is that because of that
>> information, it is classified as an L4.
>> L4 is what means something to me - not the Fa/Fs numbers. Maybe they
>> will in a few years, but not right now.
>>
>> So when I see you making up a new term to describe something that is
>> already very easily described and doesn't need clarification...I guess
>> you're free to do it, but...I don't understand why you're not just
>> saying "this is a stone that hit a building."
>>
>> Because that seems clear enough.
>>
>> Just say "it hit a boat." Or say "this one was found on the ground,
>> but another stone from this fall hit a building."
>>
>> We'll know what that means.
>>
>> And yes, Michael, there are dealers going around selling things like
>> Park Forest who are saying that their pieces are from a "hammer-fall"
>> and that the pieces that they're selling could have hit a man-made
>> object. Without any sort of verification, I would say that making
>> such claims is nothing but a cheap marketing ploy.
>> If you don't know where the stone that you're selling fell, don't say
>> that it might have hit something man-made when most stones hit nothing
>> but dirt.
>>
>> Or are you going to sell every Junacheng you get as "maybe the stone
>> that fell in the woman's cooking-pot?"
>>
>> Because, if so...it's just a marketing ploy.
>>
>> And Shawn, you missed my point entirely. I hope this message
>> clarifies things.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2917 - Release Date: 06/17/10
>> 00:35:00
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2917 - Release Date: 06/19/10
>00:35:00
>
>______________________________________________
>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 Sat 19 Jun 2010 04:58:31 PM PDT