[meteorite-list] A Bunch of Irregular Stones I Found (+How I Think They May Have Originated)

From: Peter Richards <pedrichards_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:48:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAENymwDk96ofkWcG4rrd7_OBz=rzUBP0sSb3MzRV1G+BFy=ENQ_at_mail.gmail.com>

I just want to take the opportunity yo say, based on this experience,
and others, for a so-called "scientific" community, and as someone who
has studied language, specifically, English, throwing caution to the
wind, and, clearly, guessing, is clearly 'de rigeur'. I don't
understand why it is respected. I have shared something I've found. I
don't mind discouragement, fwiw. I am open to opinions, but, in truth,
it is almost an atrocity the way the objects depicted in some, to my
own discredit, less-than-stellar photographs can be absolutely
dismissed off-handedly, and so quickly! Why is it that people think
they can gain, or maintain prestige, in a scientific field by failing
to qualify their opinions, as such. It seems to me, for example, Mr.
Utas whose recently discussed "self-pairing" of stones with "black
beauty" was a step too far in the eyes of some, is in no way out of
line, at worst, with the general type of comportment seen from many
enthusiasts and scientists alike who make a living, or perhaps even
only share interest, in this field. By the same token that Ms. Black
has suggested I read Korotev on meteorwrongs, I would suggest some of
you read material, perhaps even from Freud, discussing "the ego" in
order to understand why you wouldn't, at least, qualify, your
assertions, to some extent, by saying, "I am nearly certain," or
"rather sure," because you must know you are fallible, and that
equating having allies who are likely to, or happen to, support your
opinions with certainty, is not a scientifically sound process. It is
one of those things that is, almost too obvious to state. Look at the
experience of recent Nobel Prize winner Dan Schechtman. Doesn't this
culture run the same sort of risks as the clan there did? Now, I had
as of some time ago, studied every meteorwrong photo on Randy
Korotev's site, and incidentally, I called some into question, in my
mind, although I do respect that he knows much, and, incidentally, I
have had some insight into which of those were the "curveballs" he
throws in there, before reading that they were so. With regard to
these particular stones, I know I have, obviously, had a better look
at them than anyone of you. So, really, what is with the vociferous
outcry here? Must others be advised to ignore my emails, if you are
planning to, yourselves, or shouldn't a culture persists where
different persons, with necessarily different skills, are encouraged
to develop their own opinions?

Peter Richards

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Anne Black <impactika at aol.com> wrote:
> Yes, very much terrestrial. Most likely slag.
>
> You may want to study this site very carefully:
> http://meteorites.wustl.edu/more_info_nonlunar.htm
> Particularly all the pictures of meteorwrongs.
>
>
> Anne M. Black
> www.IMPACTIKA.com
> IMPACTIKA at aol.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Ensor <graham.ensor at gmail.com>
> To: Peter Richards <pedrichards at gmail.com>
> Cc: meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 5:14 pm
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] A Bunch of Irregular Stones I Found (+How I
> Think They May Have Originated)
>
>
> Hi Peter
>
> I'm afraid all the pictures I can get to work from your links are all
> typical of terrestrial industrial slag and not meteorites.
>
> Graham
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Peter Richards <pedrichards at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> -This stone seems to have a feature which suggests a (modified) layer
>> of the stone was once in a malleable state, and, also, under pressure,
>> appearing as if it has been folded back (on the left side of the
>> stone, note what was revealed is duller in texture, and more grey than
>> the glassy outer surface)::
>>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/67498324 at N08/8580370971/in/set-72157633060844363/
>>
>> -This has a surface with a "bubbly" appearance, suggesting liquid
>> material collected before concretizing:
>>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/67498324 at N08/8580364375/in/set-72157633060844363/
>>
>> -Here is a shot of the collected masses from a vicinity about the size
>> of a very small house:
>>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/67498324 at N08/8580374795/in/set-72157633060844363/lightbox/
>>
>> The location where these were collected, incidentally, is due north of
>> the location where many of the heavier Park Forest fragments were
>> found, and well within the constraints, of course, of known strewn
>> field dispersion, which has led me to believe these may have been a
>> part of the same fall, and undetected for a number of reasons,
>> including the commonality of gunshots in the area (especially true ten
>> years ago if I understand correctly), and rather poor air quality
>> which might have led people living nearby to remain oblivious of any
>> new arrivals such as these would have been, according to my theory.
>> Some are very dense, and others are less so. I understood that there
>> were two main types of material recovered in Park Forest, and wonder
>> whether any additional variety prospectively found here might
>> represent the remains from an asteroidal impact, or something of that
>> sort.
>>
>> Peter Richards
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
Received on Fri 22 Mar 2013 07:48:10 PM PDT