[meteorite-list] Boguslavka fall (was...Happy Crab Nebula Day!)

From: Sergey Vasiliev <vs.petrovich_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 19:35:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGiLwjzboVc=OZuA4jXhSBjHNJsnH98Pn0deWdd3rTn61AF5zA_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hi List,
Enjoy the image of Boguslavka:
http://sv-meteorites.com/gallery/boguslavka.jpg
Regards,
Sergey


On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:29 PM, MexicoDoug <mexicodoug at aim.com> wrote:
> "I got a beautifully prepared specimen from Anda, Martin and Stefan, my star
> example of a hexahedrite ..."
>
> Oops - that's Andi, of Meteoriten Haus!
>
> Kindest wishes
> Doug
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug at aim.com>
> To: sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net; paw at wirelessbeehive.com;
> meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Sent: Tue, Jul 5, 2011 1:26 pm
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Boguslavka fall (was...Happy Crab Nebula Day!)
>
>
> Sterling wrote:
>
> "By 1917, when?revolutionary Russians changed their calendars, it was 13
> days."
>
> Hi Sterling,
>
> Very informative post ... Now I have one doubt I'm going to have to check
> on.
>
> Boguslavka hexahedrite, (fall, 1916 Oct. 18). I got a beautifully prepared
> specimen from Anda, Martin and Stefan, my star example of a hexahedrite ...
>
> I'd like to clarify on the label the fall date: Julian or 'Gregorian'? If
> the date is Old System, the modern fall date in its time zone would then be
> 31 October 1916 - a Halloween in some cultures - though still October 30 (or
> October 17) in the USA... I'm thinking the it was probably recalculated to
> the modern calendar system since it was close enough to the change of the
> official calendars on Feb. 1, 1918 or so? But their is the reference quoted
> of 1916 ...
>
> "BOGUSLAVKA
> Iron IIA-H
> Fall, October 18, 1916
> Russia, Primorsk region
> Two stones weighing 256.8 kg
> Photo shows a 1765 g piece
> The fall was at 11:45 AM, the sky was clear and weather was warm. The fall
> was seen from Vladivostrok to the Han Dao He Tse rail station (475 versts)
> and accompanied by light and sound phenomena.
>
> The fall occurred 200 cubits south of a Korean village (fan-za), and
> location of the fall was shown by a resident of this fan-za, Ma Tomu Ni. The
> first fragment fell near a Cossack who happened to be riding nearby, Ivan
> Ovchinnikov.
>
> ?The meteorite Boguslavka was the first observed fall of an iron meteorite
> in the Russian Empire. Based on its main mass it was a huge fall in
> comparison with others, and has a beautiful external structure and fantastic
> shape. ...
>
> O.O. Baklund, 1916"
>
> ref:
> http://www.geokhi.ru/~meteorit/opis/boguslavka-e.html
>
> Maybe the Handbook of Iron Meteorites has more on this?
>
> Kindest wishes
> Doug
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
> To: paw at wirelessbeehive.com; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com; MexicoDoug
> <mexicodoug at aim.com>
> Sent: Tue, Jul 5, 2011 2:49 am
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] OT - Happy Crab Nebula Day!
>
> The Calendar-Go-Round!
>
> ? Simple answers first: if a source specifies "Julian calendar"
> for the date of an event, it almost certainly means the event's date
> in the Julian calendar system, proposed and enforced by Augustus,
> Julius Caesar's adopted son and first Emperor of Rome.
>
> ? By the time Pope Gregory XIII decided the calendarical slide had
> gone far enough, the Julian calendar of 1700 and the astronomical
> calendar were 11 days apart, by the 1800's when Protestant Europe
> adopted the "Gregorian" calendar, it was 12 days off. By 1917, when
> revolutionary Russians changed their calendars, it was 13 days. The
> Julian lags by one day every 143 years (since Year 1 AD).
>
> ? But it's messier than that. For example, when does a year begin?
> Jan. 1? No, not for most of the past two millennia. Were calendars,
> at a given time, the same in all countries? No.
>
> ? The Roman calendar began the year on 1 January, and this remained
> the start of the year after the Julian reform. However, even after local
> calendars were aligned to the Julian calendar, they started the new year
> on different dates. The Alexandrian calendar in Egypt started on 29
> August (30 August after an Alexandrian leap year). Several local
> provincial calendars were aligned to start on the birthday of Augustus,
> 23 September.
>
> ? The indiction caused the Byzantine year, which used the Julian
> calendar, to begin on 1 September; this date is still used in the
> Eastern Orthodox Church for the beginning of the liturgical year.
> When the Julian calendar was adopted in Russia in AD 988 by
> Vladimir I of Kiev, the year was numbered Anno Mundi 6496,
> beginning on 1 March, six months after the start of the Byzantine
> Anno Mundi year with the same number. In 1492 (AM 7000),
> Ivan III, according to church tradition, realigned the start of the
> year to 1 September, so that AM 7000 only lasted for six months
> in Russia, from 1 March to 31 August 1492.
>
> ? During the Middle Ages 1 January retained the name New Year's
> Day (or an equivalent name) in all Western European countries
> (affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church), since the medieval
> calendar continued to display the months from January to December
> (in twelve columns containing 28 to 31 days each), just as the
> Romans had. However, most of those countries began their
> numbered year on 25 December (the Nativity of Jesus), 25 March
> (the Incarnation of Jesus), or even Easter, as in France.
>
> ? In England before 1752, 1 January was celebrated as the
> New Year festival, but the "year starting 25th March was
> called the Civil or Legal Year, although the phrase Old Style
> was more commonly used." To reduce misunderstandings
> on the date, it was not uncommon in parish registers for a
> new year heading after 24 March for example 1661 had
> another heading at the end of the following December
> indicating "1661/62". This was to explain to the reader
> that the year was 1661 Old Style and 1662 New Style.
>
> ? Most Western European countries shifted the first day of
> their numbered year to 1 January while they were still using
> the Julian calendar, before they adopted the Gregorian calendar,
> many during the sixteenth century. The following table shows
> the years in which various countries adopted 1 January as the
> start of the year. Eastern European countries, with populations
> showing allegiance to the Orthodox Church, began the year on
> 1 September from about 988.
>
> ? Note that as a consequence of change of New Year,
> 1 January 1751 to 24 March 1751 are non-existent dates
> in England.
>
> ? The Julian calendar was in general use in Europe and Northern
> Africa from the times of the Roman Empire until 1582, when
> Pope Gregory XIII promulgated the Gregorian Calendar.
> Reform was required because too many leap days are added
> with respect to the astronomical seasons on the Julian scheme.
> On average, the astronomical solstices and the equinoxes
> advance by about 11 minutes per year against the Julian year.
> As a result, the calculated date of Easter gradually moved out
> of phase with the moon. While Hipparchus and presumably
> Sosigenes were aware of the discrepancy, although not of its
> correct value, it was evidently felt to be of little importance at
> the time of the Julian reform. However, it accumulated significantly
> over time: the Julian calendar gained a day about every 134 years.
> By 1582, it was ten days out of alignment.
>
> ? The Gregorian Calendar was soon adopted by most Catholic
> countries (e.g. Spain, Portugal, Poland, most of Italy). Protestant
> countries followed later, and the countries of Eastern Europe
> even later. In the British Empire (including the American colonies),
> Wednesday 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday
> 14 September 1752. For 12 years from 1700 Sweden used a
> modified Julian Calendar, and adopted the Gregorian calendar
> in 1753, but Russia remained on the Julian calendar until 1917,
> after the Russian Revolution (which is thus called the 'October
> Revolution' though it occurred in Gregorian November), while
> Greece continued to use it until 1923. During this time the Julian
> calendar continued to diverge from the Gregorian. In 1700 the
> difference became 11 days; in 1800, 12; and in 1900, 13, where
> it will stay till 2100.
>
> ? Although all Eastern Orthodox countries (most of them in Eastern
> or Southeastern Europe) had adopted the Gregorian calendar by
> 1927, their national churches had not. A revised Julian calendar
> was proposed during a synod in Constantinople in May 1923,
> consisting of a solar part which was and will be identical to the
> Gregorian calendar until the year 2800, and a lunar part which
> calculated Easter astronomically at Jerusalem. All Orthodox
> churches refused to accept the lunar part, so almost all Orthodox
> churches continue to celebrate Easter according to the Julian
> calendar (the Finnish Orthodox Church uses the Gregorian Easter).
>
> ? The solar part of the revised Julian calendar was accepted by
> only some Orthodox churches. Those that did accept it, with
> hope for improved dialogue and negotiations with the Western
> denominations, were the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople,
> the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, the Orthodox Churches
> of Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria (the last in 1963),
> and the Orthodox Church in America (although some OCA parishes
> are permitted to use the Julian calendar). Thus these churches
> celebrate the Nativity on the same day that Western Christians do,
> 25 December Gregorian until 2800. The Orthodox Churches of
> Jerusalem, Russia, Macedonia, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and the
> Greek Old Calendarists continue to use the Julian calendar for their
> fixed dates, thus they celebrate the Nativity on 25 December Julian
> (which is 7 January Gregorian until 2100).
>
> ? And... Here's a further deeper sample of calendrical complexity.
>
> ? Some examples: Should one use local solar time, local mean
> solar time, or standard time? (Prior to the International Meridian
> Conference in 1884, the records of that meeting indicate that only
> four nations followed standard time systems: the UK, the USA
> and Canada - but only just for those two, from the year before.
> The Netherlands did not become part of the international standard
> time system until 1954, for example.
>
> ? With the leap year scheme used in the Western calendar the
> time of the vernal equinox ranges over 53 hours within 19-21 March,
> producing a corresponding variation in the solar longitudes at which
> January, or any other month, occurs.
>
> ? It has been assumed for a long time that the seasonal year follows
> the spacing between the equinoxes and solstices, the *average* such
> time being the familiar *tropical year* of 365.2422 days when again
> averaged over some dozens of orbits. This assumption seems to be
> wrong. The cycle time of the seasons over the past several centuries
> (since temperature records began) is actually the anomalistic year,
> the time between perihelion passages, which is near 365.2596 days
> again when suitably averaged.
>
> ? Because perihelion passage shifts later by about one day every
> 58 years on the Western calendar, this would imply that not only
> does 'January' oscillate by 53 hours in the leap year cycle, but also
> the current January is shifted, seasonally-speaking, by more than
> two days compared to 'January' back in 1867.
>
> ? Apart from anything else, if one kept a calendar held steady
> against the perihelion position (and hence the seasonal cycle *at
> present* - I would anticipate that this cyclicity is only temporary for
> some centuries until perihelion moves far enough away from the
> winter solstice to lose the resonance) then the 24-hour period
> labelled 'January 31st (Eastern Standard Time)' would in the
> past have been in February.
>
> ? This all comes back to the calendar one uses. I have employed the
> term 'Western calendar', It is a fallacy that the calendar used as the
> world-wide standard (with local or religious calendars also employed)
> is the 'Gregorian calendar.' That is an ecclesiastical calendar adopted
> by-and-large only in various Catholic states around 1582-1610,
> persisting since in Italy and Spain. Elsewhere solar calendars have
> been legally adopted (by other countries) in which the same
> (inaccurate) leap year rule as the Gregorian happens to be used.
> The Western calendar derives basically through the major powers:
> Britain's calendar reform of 1751, which was inherited by the
> American colonies and thence by the initial founding states of the
> USA (note that the USA does not have any legal calendar code of its own,
> the familiar system is just used by common assent there and hence
> elsewhere). It is this which may be termed the 'Western calendar'.
>
> ? But that does not make the Western calendar the same as the
> Gregorian.
>
> ? There are several very significant differences. The Gregorian is a
> luni-solar calendar in that it provides for a lunar cycle as well as
> a solar sycle. Everyone knows about the leap-year corrections (three
> in 400 are dropped: 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100...) but few know also of
> the lunar jumps: the lunar phase (the phase of the ecclesiastical moon,
> not the real moon) is assumed to follow the Metonic cycle of 19 years
> which is close to 235 lunations, except that over a period of 2500 years
> there are eight single-day jumps interposed. This is done to 'regularize'
> the date of Easter, the main aim of the Gregorian reform. The Gregorian
> is a luni-solar religious calendar, whereas the Western is a solar civil
> calendar. They are not the same thing.
>
> ? That is not to say that Lord Chesterfield's Act of 1751 did not address
> religious matters. It had to, because Great Britain (as it was then)
> is a religion-based nation. The monarch is the 'Defender of the Faith.'
> In this connection the Act contains several mistakes. For anti-Catholic
> and anti-Semitic reasons the phraseology employed (oft-quoted by people in
> some form : "Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after
> the
> equinox") is nonsensical in itself, and does not lead to the Easter dates
> actually printed in the Book of Common Prayer, the tables there following
> the Catholic rules. The statement cited there would imply that Easter
> cannot coincide with either an astronomical full moon or the Passover,
> whereas such coincidences do occur. I might note that the first person
> to have spelled out this nonsense, in about 1850, seems to have been
> Augustus De Morgan, one-time Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society.
>
> ? On top of that - and this is significant - the Act mentions the desire
> to
> keep the solstices and equinox at the same seasonal dates. Leaving aside
> the recently-recognized fact that the seasons follow the anomalistic year,
> the implied necessary year-length for the calendar (the Western) as
> defined
> by that Act is the *tropical year* of 365.2422 days (on average, etc.).
> The 'Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac' (an official
> publication of the US & UK governments) actually mis-defines the tropical
> year as the time between vernal equinoxes, and it is NOT. Because of the
> eccentricity of our orbit four different-length years result from the
> times between vernal and autumnal equinoxes, and winter and summer
> solstices. The Gregorian reform was based upon regularizing Easter and
> thus keeping the date of the vernal equinox near-constant (which it fails
> to
> do; note the 53-hour range mentioned earlier), meaning that the year
> counted between those equinoxes is what is needed. This is 365.2424 days
> at present.
>
> ? This provides another reason why the Gregorian and Western calendars
> are not the same thing: their target year lengths are different. That
> difference in the fourth decimal place is significant. The mean
> Gregorian year of 365.2425 days is much closer to the Vernal Equinox
> year of 365.2424 days than the tropical year of 365.2422 days, as used
> in the Western calendar. Arguments over whether we need a 'correction'
> every 3200 or 4000 years, begun by astronomer John Herschel in 1828,
> are thus specious (and apart from anything else, tidal drag is
> lengthening the day as defined astronomically as opposed to
> atomically).
>
> ? The Catholic Church in the later sixteenth century would
> have produced a 'better' calendar if it had instead used a 33-year
> cycle containing eight leap years, as does the Persian calendar. This
> (i) Makes a year 365.242424... days long on average; (ii) Makes a cycle
> short enough to keep the equinox within a 24-hour range; (iii) Leads to
> a better solution of the lunar phase problem connected with Easter.
>
> ? There is more. The Eastern Orthodox Churches have suffered splits
> since in 1923 it was suggested that they alter from the Julian calendar
> to what has been called the 'Revised Julian'. This would have seven
> leap year days dropped from nine centuries, such that the year would
> average to 365.242222... days. This was to provide one-upmanship over
> the Gregorian scheme, but it is based on the mistaken belief that the
> *tropical year* rather than the *vernal equinox year* is the target.
> There are still arguments within those Churches on this topic, mostly
> based on a totally incorrect understanding of the astronomy.
>
> ? But this brings me full circle. So far as I am aware the only one of
> the Orthodox Churches to have adopted the Gregorian calendar is that of
> Finland. Thus it is true that the Gregorian calendar is used in
> Finland: within the Orthodox Church, and the Catholic Church. As for
> the rest of the country, that is a different matter. One would need to
> look at the Swedish legislation to see whether they adopted the
> Gregorian calendar, in a legal act dated (I would imagine) 1752, the
> year before the actual reform took place, although I am not sure
> whether Sweden was using the March 25th New Year as was Britain until
> 31st December 1751. I would imagine that the Lutherans of Sweden, like
> the Anglicans of Britain, would have written an Act which did not
> mention the Catholic Church/Pope etc., but rather defined a parallel
> solar calendar with some definition for when Easter is to be
> celebrated. Perhaps they made the same silly (and
> religiously-motivated) mistakes as did the British.
>
> ? It is very easy to make glib statements like "We use the Gregorian
> calendar" without realizing what is actually involved. For example,
> making January 1st the New Year's Day is often ascribed to the Gregorian
> reform, but that is a false belief. It was already in use before that.
> Off and on it has been used since at least 153 BC. Similarly we use
> calendar months which have been unaltered since 45 BC, notwithstanding
> claims that Augustus Caesar fiddled with them. Thus the months, as such,
> are not defined as part of the Gregorian calendar.
>
> ? Our year numbers are ordinals, not cardinals. Notwithstanding the
> fact that we count a 'zeroth law of thermodynamics', and a 'zeroth'
> Pharaonic dynasty in Egypt, it makes little sense to have a 'zeroth
> year'. AD 1 is 'the first year of the Lord'. (1 BC is the 'first year
> Before Christ', a seventeenth-century invention by an astronomer, by
> the way.) One may wonder how AD 1 can be 'the first year of the Lord'
> if he was born on December 25th (I am talking here about *traditional*
> dates rather than historically-veracious dates). When Dionysius
> Exiguus was setting up his framework for Easter dates in 525-253 (he
> was not trying to define an era) he correctly recognized that a Jewish
> boy's life is reckoned from his circumcision, not from birth.
>
> ? Thus Dionysius equated 1st January (in the year which two centuries
> later became labelled AD 1) as the date of the circumcision, it being the
> start of the year. (Look into a Church Missal and you will find January
> 1st named as the Feast of the Circumcision, and our method of counting
> years from that date is technically referred to as the *Stylo
> Circumcisionis*.) Circumcision occurs on the eighth day counting
> exclusively (see your Bible), putting the traditional Nativity on 25th
> December 1 BC, which was the traditional (but not actual, even then)
> date of the winter solstice festivities. (The early Church had actually
> used January 6th, Epiphany, to avoid the pagan solstice celebrations.)
> Dionysius then counted back the nine month gestation period to the
> traditional (but not actual) vernal equinox of March 25th in 1 BC, and
> he counted years from there as the *Anni ab Incarnatione*. This is the
> year which astronomers call 0 (using cardinals) but is more generally
> termed 1 BC (using ordinals). The fact that March 25th was the
> Incarnation/Annunciation/Lady Day was what led to the British and
> eventually American colonies using that date for New Year, although
> counted FROM THE WRONG YEAR! (AD 1 instead of 1 BC).
>
> ? Although the USA now uses the Western calendar, and previous
> to 1752 the Julian was used in the Atlantic colonies, do not imagine
> that no use has ever been made of other systems. When the first
> Catholic missionaries arrived, they imposed the Gregorian calendar.
>
> ? Thus when (say) Texas and California joined the USA, although
> their dating systems may have been continuous they did move from the
> Gregorian to the Western calendar. Those parts in the Louisiana
> Purchase were on the Gregorian until they were administered for three
> weeks under the French Revolutionary Calendar in late 1803, before
> Napoleon sold the region to the USA. That's something to note next
> time you eat Lobster Thermidor in New Orleans.
>
> ? Until Alaska was sold in 1868 to the USA it was part of the Russian
> Empire, and thus on the Julian calendar. But it is more confusing than
> that. The day of the week there was different to that throughout the
> rest of North America. Although a change from Julian to Western (or
> Gregorian) calendar did not involve a change in the day of week sequence
> elsewhere, in Alaska it did because that region, in the absence of any
> International Date Line, used both the date and the day of the week
> appropriate for Moscow.
>
> [Deep breath]
>
> ? But the date of the supernova is recorded in the Chinese calendar,
> not the Western calendar, as "Zhihe era of the reign, first year, fifth
> lunar month, ji-chou day," says the Wenxian Tongkao of 1280 CE
> and the Xu Zizhi Tongjian Changbian of 1320 CE. But the Song
> Huiyao, a Sung source, gives the date as "Zhihe era, first year, seventh
> lunar month, 22nd day" when it was observed as a faint yellow
> star that then brightened. The account contains considerable
> observational detail: "...has been seen in daylight, like Venus.
> It had rays stemming in all directions, and its colour was reddish
> white. Altogether visible [in the day] for 23 days." This date would
> shift the supernova date from the Fourth of July into September,
> however.
>
> ? Japaenese sources (three) all agree with each other but put it
> one linar month earlier than the Chinese account and are all
> inconsitent with rising times.
>
> ? An Islamic oberservation was discovered in 1978 that places
> the supernova in the year 446 of the Islamic calendar, which year
> ran from 12th of April 1054 to the 1st of April 1055 (it's a lunar
> calendar] at the summer low level of the Nile, which fits the July
> date. Claims that certain vague European accounts are of the
> Crab are rejected by most astronomers.
>
> Interpretations of the dates are not straightforward. the 24th of
> April and the 11th of May have also be argued for as the correct
> date by various scholare. The July 4 date was calculated by
> Jan Julius Lodewijk Duyvendak for Jan Oort in 1942.
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "MexicoDoug" <mexicodoug at aim.com>
> To: <paw at wirelessbeehive.com>; <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 10:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] OT - Happy Crab Nebula Day!
>
>>
>>
>> It ought to be Julian since that was in effect ... or else all the >
>
> references would have to say something about the re-adjustment of the >
> date, but that's just an opinion! In astronomy, generally the 1582 >
> conversion is respected by astronomers if I recall - I.e., before that >
> time events are on the Julian Calendar, and afterwards Gregorian, even > if
> they nation of the observation was still on the Julian date; > usually that
> doesn't matter and by convention the expression I time I > believe changes
> in 1582. Jean Meeus's incredibly useful books, if I > had them would have an
> excellent discussion of the subject, but I > don't have my references with
> me. Some other list member could look it
>>
>> up as Meeus'd be the expert.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Doug
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick Wiggins <paw at wirelessbeehive.com>
>> To: MeteorList <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> Sent: Mon, Jul 4, 2011 10:12 pm
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] OT - Happy Crab Nebula Day!
>>
>>
>> I've often wondered and maybe someone here can answer.
>>
>> Since 1054 was long before the 1582 conversion from the Julian to >
>
> Gregorian
>>
>> calendar, is the July 4 date that gets mentioned for the first >
>
> sighting of
>>
>> supernova a Julian date or has it been converted to Gregorian?
>>
>> ???
>>
>> patrick
>>
>>
>> On 04 Jul 2011, at 10:25, Gary Fujihara wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Cosmic Fireworks: On July 4, 1054, Chinese astronomers observed a
>>
>> "guest star"
>> in the constellation Taurus, the result of a star exploding or going
>> Supernova.
>> At mag -6, SN1054 (Supernova of 1054) became about 4 times brighter >
>
> than Venus,
>>
>> was visible in daylight for 23 days, and lasted a period of two
>
> years. > Today we
>>
>> can still see remnants of SN1054 as the Messier Object 1 (M1) Crab >
>
> Nebula.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://bigkahuna-meteorites.com/_M1.jpg
>>>
>>> Oh, and for those terrestrially bound in the USA, Happy Fourth of
>>
>> July!
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary Fujihara
>>> Big Kahuna Meteorites (IMCA#1693)
>>> 105 Puhili Place, Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
>>> http://bigkahuna-meteorites.com/
>>> http://shop.ebay.com/fujmon/m.html
>>> (808) 640-9161
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 Tue 05 Jul 2011 01:35:17 PM PDT