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

From: Linton Rohr <lintonius_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:57:25 -0700
Message-ID: <A305AFCAA6314977BFFB56E3B5086E7A_at_D190TH71>

Well folks, since this is getting a bit silly anyway, I'll go ahead and
refer you to the tale of Maxwell, the English silversmith, who had a meteor
impact his silver gallery, creating one of the most famous hammers of all.
<g>
Bang, bang...
Linton

----- Original Message -----
From: <countdeiro at earthlink.net>
To: "Bob Loeffler" <bobl at peaktopeak.com>;
<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] My last comment on Hammer Question (hopefully)


> 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
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 05:57:25 PM PDT