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

From: cdtucson at cox.net <*cdtucson_at_meteoritecentral.com*> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:11:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20100619181148.LV7MG.825200.imail_at_fed1rmwml29> · cdtucson_at_meteoritecentral.com

--
Carl or Debbie Esparza
Meteoritemax
---- Linton Rohr <lintonius at earthlink.net> wrote: 
> 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
> > 
> 
> ______________________________________________
> 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