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

From: Joshua Tree Earth & Space Museum <dorifry_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:43:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CC69E6858F444455B259E55126325647_at_terryPC>

Dude:

Your rambling verbosity is revealing your ignorance. It's a piece of slag,
OK? Move on, you're boring the crap out of me.

Phil Whitmer
Joshua Tree Earth & Space Museum
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Richards" <pedrichards at gmail.com>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] A Bunch of Irregular Stones I Found (+How I
Think They May Have Originated)


> 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
> ______________________________________________
>
> 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 Sat 23 Mar 2013 01:43:20 PM PDT