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

From: Galactic Stone & Ironworks <meteoritemike_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:55:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKBPJW98J1dB+-dcy4bqp8v5=f93fDx67XEOZu5iLhKUpgYjZQ_at_mail.gmail.com>

Wow! I am a member of the good old boys club now. I never thought I
would be accepted, since I am a Johnny Come Lately. If you actually
knew me, or the market, you'd know I am locked out of the good old
boys club - they don't like me. They literally have my photo on the
door and it says "DO NOT LET THIS GUY IN." LOL.

Well folks, somebody show me the secret handshake and let me know the
location of the secret "Meteorite Black Market" that was mentioned in
the NYT.

Peter, nobody here is trying to be tool. You came and asked for
opinions and got them. If you don't like what you heard, don't shoot
the messenger. I have found the members of this list to be extremely
helpful to newbies and people with questions.

I have seen rocks, like the ones in your photos, a million times and
there is 99% chance they are not meteorites - judging by the photos
alone, which is always difficult at best. If you feel strongly that
you have some new type of meteorite or some hitherto-unseen variant of
meteorite, then by all means follow up on it and don't be discouraged.
 Take it to someone local who is qualified and let them examine/test
it first-hand.

Once a person has been around the meteorite scene long enough, you
become a bit jaded towards unknown rock inquiries. I literally get
dozens of these a month from all corners of the world. In the last 7
years, I have seen hundreds of suspect rocks, possibly thousands, from
hopeful finders. I try to point some of them in the right direction,
but many people just don't want to hear anything negative (or what
they perceive as negative) about their specimens.

Some members of this don't have good bedside manner, so to speak. I
have been one of those people at times, but I am working on improving
that lately. But, despite the attitudes sometimes, there are a lot of
very experienced and knowledgeable people on this list. I would dwell
on how they delivered they opinion - instead, I would focus on the one
thing that several qualified people agree on - that your stones do not
look like any known meteorite, or they have some characteristics that
suggest they are terrestrial.

And you have to consider that many members of this list have had bad
experiences with consulting the general public about meteorites - one
dealer had a creepy guy look him up on Google Earth, and showed up
unannounced on his doorstep with a box of meteorwrongs. We've had
abuse hurled at us, obscenities, 3am phone calls, and even the
occasional threat - all because some people are unable to accept
"bad" news that their rock is terrestrial.

Peter, seriously, take it somewhere local and have it looked at.
Before you do that, do a streak test, a specific gravity test and
possibly a nickel test - that will narrow down the possibilities until
you can get it to a lab. If the lab says it is a meteorite, then
we'll gladly eat crow for it. ;)

Best regards,

MikeG

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone
Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone
RSS - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516
-------------------------------------------------------------
On 3/23/13, Peter Richards <pedrichards at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 01:55:02 PM PDT