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

From: Peter Richards <pedrichards_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:23:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAENymwBpxrFLHiHCNB-wF3aKXmmNZN34VTNzi6=eYGpv3VzMcw_at_mail.gmail.com>

Mike G (Galactic Stone & Ironworks) said: "I've had dozens of people
get pissy or go ballistic when told their
slag is not a meteorite. Some people just don't want to hear bad news
and they shoot the messenger"

I am saying, Mike, apparently, attitudes like yours are those that
predominate. The result I think is to discourage what Graham Ensor
says is desired. ie. "new blood," and facilitate the maintenance of an
"old boys club," as they say. For what its worth, I think the cultural
problems I've alleged exist are rather pervasive throughout the
scientific, academics communities, as well as society at large, so
it's not only here. Such and attitude is seemingly so prevalent, and
domineering, that even when I raise some valid points about precision
in language, and a failure to verbalize the "ingenious" workings of
the brain, rather than back something up with one's "experience," and
"past accomplishments," or "social position" many people continue to
prove me right. If you are going to accuse something of being "slag"
or "clinkers," I would think it might be common courtesy to, also,
explain why your "brain" had deduced this. Likewise, "what are the
features most uncharacteristic of meteorites that would lead one to
believe the chance is small that they could be, or that it is not
worth exploring?" would be another appropriate topic, according to my
opinion.

John (Pict at Pict.co.uk) said:
"However if you required a qualitative exposition of the reasoning,
would it not have been a better strategy to politely ask for it, rather
than be such a boor? "
My entire point is that the language was an attempt to disqualify any
asking for "exposition of reasoning." I think it's rather clear that
the language I was lamenting the use of suggested this. That is my
opinion. Again, not many have explained why my take was daft there,
but there have been some "me too"s, "harumphs" etc. to the effect that
it was, indeed. Again, I don't see the rationale.

These are admittedly strange "objects". I haven't maintained they are
definitely meteorites, yet I have maintained that they should be given
a fair take. "Easter egg syndrome," as Adam Hupe has written, consists
in "believing meteorites are found easily," which I haven't
maintained. I said I believe that if a community wanted to be actually
scientific, and not only apparently so, they would not base their
judgements on things like "that was too easy," or "the chances are too
low," alone!

Finally, what I have learned is to make an attempt to be more
"to-the-point" while asking anything in a forum, and to verbalize my
thought processes.
So, you have 1. the folded back, apparently peeled layer, which might
have been heat modified. It is thick, maybe around 1mm, which I've
read is unusually large for a fusion crust, but is seemingly within
the bounds of reason. 2. The cliff-like sides on another of the
"objects". 3. A frothy smooth surface on another side. 4. (something I
had forgotten about, yesterday, until after these exchanges) What
appear to be surfaces which have perhaps uncannily corresponding
surfaces, and shapes at large. That is to say the overall dimensions
are similar, and specific surfaces have features which are "mirrored"
almost as a casting and a mould, although, of course, these are much
more imperfect than that description. What I can say about this is
that it's not pseudo-science. It may not provide absolute proof, but
it is a method derived from logic, ie. if these were meteorites they
would, before ablating, have been of one piece, and therefore it is
likely that some of the features remain from the irregular fracturing,
which could be compared, in a metaphorical sense, to a fingerprint.
Here is a set in which I attempt to depict what I have observed while
considering the aforementioned possibility (note: all my photos in
this photostream depict nothing more than stones, my hand holding
them, and ordinary objects in the background, fyi):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/67498324 at N08/8582349428/in/photostream
(showing surfaces with corresponding features separated)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/67498324 at N08/8581248239/in/photostream/
(showing those masses "aligned" as they theoretically would have been
before fracturing)
Basically, what I am looking for is described by an "old cliche," and,
in my defence, it would have been closed-minded of me not to consider,
and make an attempt to explain, why closed-mindedness seems to be at
work.


Peter Richards
Received on Sat 23 Mar 2013 01:23:47 PM PDT