[meteorite-list] Water, not wind. (was,"Nice Chondrules")

From: Robert Verish <bolidechaser_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:55:56 2004
Message-ID: <20020131214149.22020.qmail_at_web10406.mail.yahoo.com>

I agree with Allan Treiman. These are great looking
meteor-wrongs. In fact, no meteor-wrong web site
would be complete without a link to this stunning,
geologically uninformed "britishlibrary" web site.
Even if you forgive the misidentification of
meteorites due to a lack of an acquired expertise,
their lack of interest in learning about the rocks
common to their local area is what stuns me.

To me, the quality of these meteor-wrongs suggests
that there is a very high probability that a meteorite
CAN be found in this area (if one hasn't been found
already;-). What I wouldn't give to live near a
desert pavement like the one pictured in the
background of these images. So forgive my suspicion,
but those people that have suggested that this web
site might be "a prank" may be on to something.

But then again, this may become the classic example of
the impossibility of educating the general public, no
matter how many quality images are available on all
the excellent meteorite and meteor-wrong web sites. I
am continually dismayed by all the meteor-wrongs
brought to me by finders who say, "It looks just like
a meteorite that I saw on [enter any meteorite dealers
name here] web site"! Then when I go to that web
site, I usually end up saying, "You think THAT
meteorite image looks like THIS piece of iron ore?"

Another "impossibility" is getting 3 geologists to use
the same name when identifying a meteor-wrong. Not an
actual problem, but to the lay-person, the variation
in geologic terms applied to a meteor-wrong by
different examiners is often perceived as varying
opinions.

Another tip-of-the-hat to Allan for his concise
evaluation of the latest "Diamondmeteorite.com"
images. More importantly, the descriptions are
understandable to the lay-person. But then, I should
also give credit to Graham Christensen for pointing
out that the "flow lines" on the 3rd wrong are
"oriented upwards" and are "probably formed by rain".
 Granted, we don't know for sure the original
orientation in the ground for these fine-grained,
layered white rocks, but on their surface these
finely-spaced rills are more typical of dissolution
features on limestone than the product of windblown
sand. It has been my observation that rocks like
limestone have difficulty developing ventifacted
surfaces. Even if there is very minimal precipitation
(or even condensation), dissolution will always
outpace ventification.

Bob V.

-------------------------------------------------------

[meteorite-list] Nice Chondrules
Treiman, Allan Treiman_at_lpi.usra.edu
Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:18:19

Beautiful and educational meteor-wrongs!

++++++
The third rocks are ventifacts, carved by windblown
sand. By their color, they are probably limestone.
Behind the rocks is a nice desert pavement, which is
consistent with lots of wind.
++++++
   Geologically yours
   Allan

Allan H. Treiman

------------------------------------------------
[meteorite-list] Nice Chondrules
Graham Christensen majorvoltage_at_hotmail.com
Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:43:02 -0700

Hello Mohammed,
Very interesting but I think your identification is
wrong.
++++++++
And finally, your 'flow lines' are probably formed by
rain. Notice how they all seem to be oriented upwards.
Also, flow lines are only seen on fresh fusion crust
and most fusion crust is dark except on some
achondrite.
++++++++

Happy hunting.
Graham Christensen

*******************************************************










__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
Received on Thu 31 Jan 2002 04:41:49 PM PST